Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITIONS

Transport and General Workers Union (Retired Members)

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I wish to present a petition to the House on behalf of the retired members of the Transport and General Workers Union in my district. The petition reads as follows:
To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of Retired members of the Transport and General Workers Union in the City of Kingston upon Hull sheweth.
That the legislation based on the "Reform of Social Security"—"Programme for Action" White Paper would be extremely detrimental to the residents of the United Kingdom who are in receipt of Social Security benefits. Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House do not pass legislation arising out of the "Reform of Social Security" White Paper. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, etc.
The list of signatures is headed by Mr. Jack Webster, president of the retired branch of the Transport and General Workers Union in my area, and contains over 1,600 signatures. Although the Government may not do much about the matter, following the result in Fulham yesterday, we can be sure that the next Labour Government will remedy the defects of this legislation.

To lie upon the Table.

Radioactive Waste Storage

Mr. Austin Mitchell: The petition that I wish to present reads as follows:
The humble petition of the people of Great Grimsby showeth that the undersigned are totally and absolutely opposed to any proposal to locate any radioactive waste storage or disposal facility within the County of Humberside and consider that any such facility would relegate the area designating it as more suitable for dangerous dumping than for development.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will under no circumstances approve a Special Development

Order allowing preliminary site exploration or associated works in connection with the storage or disposal of radioactive waste in Humberside and will take all such other action within the powers of the House to prevent a national radioactive waste storage or disposal facility being established in Humberside.
The petition has been signed by just over 300 signatories who stand four square with the petitioners from the other three areas threatened with nuclear waste dumping in asking the Department of the Environment to listen to the advice of the Select Committee on the Environment and not to proceed with a special development order, and in asking the House. if the Department decides to proceed, to reject it.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Nicholas Lyell: I have the honour to present the humble petition of the citizens of the counties of Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Buckinghamshire in the vicinity of Elstow, in my constituency, to the effect that the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive proposals to place radioactive nuclear waste at Elstow should be rejected.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House do urge the Secretary of State for the Environment to reject any such proposal by NIREX and to prevent any such deposit of radioactive waste in Bedfordshire.
The petition is signed by no fewer than 96,000 of my constituents and constituents in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet), for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel), for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant), for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) and for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) and for constituencies in Buckinghamshire. It shows the overwhelming opposition in the area to these misguided proposals.

To lie upon the Table.

BILL PRESENTED

LOCAL AUTHORITY FINANCE ETC.

Mr. Galley: presented a Bill to provide that a local authority in any one year may raise rates by no more than 5 per cent. above the increase in the Retail Price Index prevailing on 1st January in the calendar year in which rates are set; to provide that the Secretary of State shall have regard to the level of rates set by a local authority in distributing rate support grant; to make provision for local authorities to put out to tender a range of services which they have a duty to provide; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 9 May and to be printed. [Bill 320.]

Orders of the Day — Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 12

PERSONS LEAVING SPECIAL EDUCATION

'(1) Where—

(a) a local education authority have made a statement under section 7 of the Education Act 1981 (Statement of child's educational needs) in respect of a child under the age of 14, and
(b) the statement is still maintained by the authority at whichever is the earlier of the following times, namely—

(i) the time when they institute the first annual review of the statement following the child's fourteenth birthday, and
(ii) any time falling after that birthday when they institute a re-assessment of his educational needs.

the authority shall at that time require the appropriate officer to give to the authority his opinion as to whether the child is or is not a disabled person.

(2) Where—

(a) a local education authority make any such statement in respect of a child after he has attained the age of 14, or
(b) a local education authority maintain any such statement in respect of a child in whose case the appropriate officer has, in pursuance of subsection (1), given his opinion that the child is not a disabled person, but the authority have become aware of a significant change in the mental or physical condition of the child giving them reason to believe that he may now be a disabled person.

the authority shall, at the time of making the statement or (as the case may be) of becoming aware of that change, require the appropriate officer to give to the authority his opinion as to whether the child is or is not a disabled person.

(3) Not later than nine months before the presumed date on which a disabled child will cease to receive full time education provided by or on behalf of a local education authority, the authority shall, with the consent of the disabled child (or where the child is under 16 or is incapable of giving consent with the consent of his parent or guardian inform the appropriate officer of that date.

(4) When the appropriate officer receives information from a local education authority in accordance with the preceding subsection he shall make arrangements for an assessment of the needs of the disabled child for the provision by the authority of which he is an officer of any statutory services for that child in accordance with any of the welfare enactments within a period of not more than six months.

(5) In this section—
the appropriate officer"—

(a) in relation to a local education authority other than the Inner London Education Authority, means such officer discharging social services functions of the council in question under the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 as may be appointed by them for the purposes of this section, and
(b) in relation to the Inner London Education Authority, means such officer as may be appointed for the purposes of this section by the authority which is the local authority for the purposes of that Act for the area in which the child referred to in subsection (1) or (2) is ordinarily resident; and



"child" means a person of compulsory school age or a person who has attained that age but not the age of 19 and is registered as a pupil at a school or a college of further education; and
"disabled child" means a child who the appropriate officer has informed a local education authority is in his opinion a disabled person in accordance with subsections (1) and (2) above;

and expressions used in the Education Act 1944 have the same meaning in this section as in that Act.

Provided that the provisions of subsection (4) above shall apply notwithstanding that the disabled person has attained the age of 19.

(6) This section applies to England and Wales only.'.—[Mr. Tom Clarke.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Duty of education authority to ascertain whether children with special educational needs are disabled: Scotland—

New clause 3—Assessment and recording of children and young persons.

New clause 7—Duty of education authority to ascertain whether children with special educational needs are disabled—

Amendment No. 3.

Mr. Clarke: I welcome Ministers to the Front Bench. Much work has gone into the Bill, both in Committee and elsewhere, and I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for that. I hope that with a bit of common sense and tidiness we can produce a Bill that will in due course obtain its Third Reading and thus do a great deal for the disabled, their carers and their families.
New clause 12 is important and is based on the discussion that we have had. I move it in the knowledge that time is perhaps not on our side because of the many issues that we must discuss. If possible, I shall speak for no more than five minutes on each issue. Indeed, if that was the pattern for the day, I for one would not complain. I know that hon. Members have strong views on many of the issues and I appreciate the fact that so many hon. Members have stayed for this debate on a Friday. But it is important to try to achieve our ends before 2.30 pm in order to facilitate the Bill's Third Reading.
The Government conducted a consultation exercise. It is only fair to point out that the response to that and to the Government's consultative documents was overwhelmingly in favour of the Bill and against the Government's proposals. Of course, that might be expected on the part of organisations of and for disabled people which had been closely involved in drafting the Bill and in giving their assistance. But I am sure that the Government were surprised by the strength of support for key clauses from health authorities, professional bodies and the local authority associations.
In Committee, I said that I would make up my own mind on amendments for the Report stage following the responses received. The new clauses and amendments that I have tabled reflect that view. I acknowledge that the Government's amendments represent a modest improvement on the position in the consultation paper, but they are


still not quite good enough and do not go as far as the Bill's sponsors would like. That is why I have tabled various new clauses and amendments.
As I have said throughout the passage of the Bill, there are certain key principles in the Bill, to which the House gave an unopposed Second Reading on 17 January, which must be retained if the Bill is to have any meaning. The first concerns new clause 12, which finds the Government on very weak ground. The Government new clause 7 merely retains a procedure for notification by the social services to the education department that a child is disabled at 14 plus. There is a unanimous view among those responsible for social services that an assessment can and should be undertaken by them before the child leaves full-time education.
9.45 am
I shall quote two responses which are important in their own right but which also encapsulate many of the views expressed in response to the Government's documents. The Association of County Councils said about the new clause:
This probably is the area where the Association has least difficulty with the proposals in the Bill itself…The Association has recently responded favourably to the notion of 'shared care' for children with special educational needs, and it seems logical for this to be a relationship which extends into adulthood. The Association's main difficulty relates simply to the number of formal notifications required.
The Association of Directors of Social Services said:
Joint assessment at this stage involves collaborative forward planning which is highly desirable at the critical point in the life of the young person to whom the support and familiarity of the educational environment are lost, and where continuity of service availability is, in conseqence, especally important.
New clause 12 is the next logical step after the Education Act 1981. I have read the responses carefully, as have my hon. Friends and my advisers have spent considerable time with the officials of the ACC and Association of Metropolitan Authorities in an effort to meet their concerns. I hope that the Government will recognise the concessions that I have made in reducing what they describe as the bureaucracy and the number of contacts between authorities. The proposed time-scale for notification has been reduced in the new clause from 12 months before leaving school to nine months. That means the beginning of a child's last year at school. The social services are given six months rather than three in which to undertake the assessment.
Furthermore clause 3(3) which requires further reports from education authorities to social service departments has been completely dropped. I believe that the associations are now happy with the clause, and they appear to accept that the resource implications are minimal. I estimate that the average social service department may have to undertake no more than 20 assessments a year as a result of the clause, and many of the children may already be receiving services. The clause will ensure that the major change in their lives and the period of great trauma for their families will be properly planned and prepared.
The Minister will doubtless say that my new clause is defective. However, he may have had second thoughts on rereading it. I admit that we had difficulty in drafting the provisions in relation to people leaving full-time education at 19, when technically they may no longer be children. But this small group of young people in special colleges of further education is vital, as the Minister will appreciate

from the BBC programme in which he appeared yesterday. Most of these colleges are run by charities with sponsoring from education departments or, occasionally, the social services, and in those circumstances it is unfortunately too easy for them to be ignored by local authorities until they arrive back full time with their parents at 19. If the House accepts the new clause, I hope that the Minister will assist in preparing any technical amendments that may be needed in the other place.
Finally, I must refer briefly to new clauses 2 and 3. New clause 2 is the Scottish equivalent of new clause 7. In the time available I have not been able to draft an equivalent to new clause 12. If new clause 12 is accepted, I hope that the Government will assist in its extension to Scotland when the matter is debated in the other place. New clause 3, which stands in the name of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay), is a small improvement which I am happy to include in the Bill without debate.
In that spirit, I commend the new clause.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I congratulate the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on the way in which he has brought the Bill through its Committee stage and on the amount of work that he has put in, in detailed consultation on the necessary amendments and new clauses. He had good fortune in coming first in the ballot and has introduced a most welcome Bill.
Even if the resources that the Government are prepared to devote are fewer than had perhaps been hoped for, the hon. Gentleman has still done extremely well to get the Government's backing which, indeed, we hope will materialise today. I have heard the figure of £25 million being quoted as the cost of resources agreed, and for a private Member's Bill to secure that amount of backing must be a matter of pride for the hon. Gentleman.
I also congratulate the Government on having found resources to help make this Bill possible, even if not at the level hoped for. It is all in a good cause. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, the Government have a record of increasing expenditure for the chronically sick and disabled, and various measures have meant substantial increases in expenditure, to a total of £4·5 million for the chronically sick and disabled.
I support new clause 12, as moved by the hon. Member for Monklands, West. Without it, all we are doing is looking at a paper chase. It is most important that assessments are made. Whenever disabled people come out of hospital at any stage of their life, an assessment is necessary, particularly in the case of younger children. About 1,000 children are still in long-stay mental hospitals. Plans are desperately needed for placing those children in the community.
I ask the Minister to give special attention to the need to provide sufficient back-up and after care. If families are to provide adoptive or foster homes for children who are severely handicapped, they need to know that sufficient back-up care is available to help them in their task. We fostered a boy nearly three years ago; it is his 11th birthday today. Even if the £100 million requested was a bit much, it is a welcome birthday present of £25 million that the Minister has given to him and people in a similar situation. I commend the clause to the House and hope that it meets with approval.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The Opposition support new clause 12. On new clause 2, the Scottish equivalent of new clause 7, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) will speak briefly as the debate proceeds. I think it will be well if all of us can take as our principal text for debates on this humane and much needed Bill a statement of Professor Mittler. Few people anywhere have done more than he has to help severely handicapped children and their families. He is a former adviser of the Secretary of State for Social Services. Writing to the right hon. Gentleman on 7 April, Professor Mittler said:
To let this Bill fall or be talked out would be unforgivable.
That is my view and it is endorsed by professional opinion, and by all the voluntary organisations that the Government have consulted on the Bill. What it requires from both sides of the House today is, first, brevity, and, secondly, a resolve to ensure that, whatever differences may exist, a Bill as strong and viable as possible must emerge from our debates.
New clause 12 is but a modest step forward about which there has been full consultation with the AMA and the ACC, which are not concerned with the expenditure implications. In Standing Committee, even to mention the word resources, was like swearing in church. I hope it will be found less reprehensible here on the Floor of the House. As I say, the new clause is modest in its effects. I hope very much that the House will approve it unanimously.

Mr. Jack Ashley: I intervene briefly to say that I was glad to hear the comment of the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), because he has direct personal experience of the problems of disability. However, I would be out of order in following him on the general question of what this Government have accomplished, as compared with the previous Government. That is not what we should be discussing today; we should discuss only this Bill and, at present, the new clause, which I commend. We disagree strongly on the record of this Government as compared with the previous one.
On this Bill, I expect no basic disagreement; I hope we are working together in this case.
I hope that new clause 12 will be accepted because, without the assessment, disabled children leaving school will be left in a vacuum at the most important time of their lives. The case for new clause 12 is overwhelming. I was sorry indeed to see new clause 7 presented by the Government. If the Minister would accept new clause 12, I can assure him he would be doing something for which legislation should not really be required. It should be automatic for disabled children to be assessed when they leave school. But we do need legislation for what should be automatic, so I hope that the Minister will accept new clause 12 as an imperative necessity.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), who has carried this Bill forward with great skill and a constructive attitude that augurs extremely well for the chances of getting it on the statute book. I share his hope that the Bill will be given a Third reading today, and I acknowledge the way in which he has responded to the points I made on behalf of the Government at Second reading, during Committee, in the process of consultation, and on the the many occasions on which we have discussed between us the best way to proceed. I shall quickly explain

the Government's position in relation to the clause in the Bill, the new clause proposed by the Government, and the new clause proposed by the hon. Gentleman.
The provisions of the Bill as drafted would require local education authorities to record, on any statement of special education need made under the Education Act 1981 in respect of a child aged 13-plus—at which age there is a statutory reassessment of need—whether the child is, in the opinion of the social services department, a disabled person. If so, and if the young person or his representative agrees, the Social Services department is to be notified not later than 12 months before the expected date of leaving full-time education. The Social Services department is to be notified again three months before the anticipated leaving date, and given details of further education and training which would, in the view of the local education authority, be appropriate for him or her.
On receipt of this last notification, social services departments would be required to carry out a full assessment of the young person's needs. The Government accept the need for close liaison between LEAs and SSDs. However, focusing on the mandatory reassessment age of 13-plus means that a number of children assessed or reassessed between 12½ and 13½ would be excluded. This is a technical difficulty associated with the original clause. Recording information about disability on the statement kept by the LEA would be inappropriate, as it would have no direct relevance to the child's educational needs. The elaborate procedures for passing information from LEAs to SSDs would place a burden on LEAs.
For those reasons, the Government have put forward their amendment to new clause 7. That would remove the proposed duties on LEAs to pass on specific information to SSDs about disabled children and on the SSDs to assess the needs of disabled school leavers. Instead of that, the LEAs would be required to seek advice from the SSD about whether the child is disabled in his or her 15th year, either as part of the mandatory reassessment or the first annual review of the statement, whichever is the sooner; to obtain such advice from the SSD in respect of a child over 14 being assessed for the first time; and to seek a further opinion in respect of children whose mental and physical condition has changed and for whom revised advice may be appropriate. The procedure should certainly secure better liaison between LEAs and SSDs at a time more likely to provide information relevant to the child's needs on leaving full-time education.
New clause 12 follows the basic structure of the Government's proposed new clause 7, but in addition would require—the hon. Gentleman lays great stress on this—local education authorities to inform social services departments of the cessation of full-time education nine months before the presumed date. From my consultations with the Department of Education and Science experts, perhaps eight months would be a more administratively sensible point. However, this is a highly technical matter which can easily be resolved later. The new clause would also require, where such information is received by a social services department, an assessment of need to be undertaken within six months.
10 am
There are a number of problems with the proposed new clause which to some extent, have been shown in the comments we have received from the ACC. The ACC broadly agrees that new clause 12 is a satisfactory


replacement for new clause 3, but would prefer the determination of disability and the assessment to be rolled into a single requirement in order to reduce the administrative burden on LEAs. That seems to be a sensible proposition.
The ACC suggests that if that approach commends itself to the House, an appropriate amendment can be tabled at a later stage, and I agree. To set the general spirit of co-operation and constructive work which, I hope, will animate all our proceedings today, I shall not press new clause 7. I shall accept new clause 12 on the basis that we shall need to have further discussions. I hope that the hon. Member for Monklands, West and his advisers will join local authorities in considering the technical matters. Far be it from me to trespass on Scottish territory, but as I understand it, new clause 2 is the equivalent, for Scotland, of new clause 7. I imagine that my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for health in Scotland will take a similar view, and will not go ahead with new clause 2. Equally, that matter will have to be considered.

Mr. Tom Clarke: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Is the hon. Gentleman seeking to address the House again?

Mr. Clarke: The Minister with typical generosity has given way. In the interests of making progress with the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you may wish me to say that the Minister's comments are extremely helpful. He accepts the principle of new clause 12 which, as hon. Members will agree, represents considerable progress. He made valid administrative points which I accept, and I agree that further consultation will be necessary. I am delighted to accept the representations and views expressed by the Minister.

Mr. Hayhoe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I shall draw my remarks to a close because we have a great deal of work to do. I hope that I have made it absolutely clear that the Government do not intend to seek to delay the Bill by procedural devices. Providing the spirit that has animated these early exchanges, and, indeed, private conversations, continues, I see no reason why we should not make good progress, and send the Bill to another place later this afternoon.
I made it clear to the hon. Gentleman in my letter, in which I set out the series of Government amendments following the consultation exercise, that the consultation exercise had shown the resource implications of the Government's proposals to be rather greater than had been anticipated, and that it would be necessary to use the commencement order procedures in the Bill to activate those parts of the Bill when the resources are available to meet them. Indeed, it is on that basis that the LEAs have been giving their views. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) may have misunderstood the position, that the present public expenditure arrangements do not include provisions for the Bill. That has been recognised by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) whose work in his leading role in the all-party disablement group is well known to the House. If I recall rightly, on the Tuesday before Easter he raised that specific point at Question Time, and I responded by saying that it would be necessary to behave in that way regarding resources.
Today we are dealing with the legislative provision, and the resources question is separate. We will follow the

normal procedures of the House, if today we concentrate on the legislative provision, although one can never be unmindful of the resource implications.

Mr. Thurnham: Have the Government been able to quantify the savings that would result from a reduction in crisis interventions, and also from a reduction in the number of people in institutional care, if the provisions can be made to work properly? Costs can be incurred at a level of £19,000 a year in looking after a handicapped child in an institution.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that we can confine our remarks to the new clause.

Mr. Hayhoe: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you almost take the words from my mouth. Perhaps I should merely reiterate your wise advice. My hon. Friend tempts me to debate the very areas which I have just said seem inappropriate for me to deal with. All the resource implications, both on the plus and the minus sides, will need to be examined much more carefully as a result of our work today, what happens in another place, and when the legislation as now envisaged is enacted. However, I felt it necessary to make the resource point which I had set out in my letter to the hon. Member for Monklands, West, copies of which were sent to all Committee members. There was no secret about it.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My right hon. Friend referred to our hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam). Is he aware that our hon. Friend was extremely anxious to be present but had an unavoidable appointment elsewhere?

Mr. Hayhoe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I had intended to say that, because our hon. Friend made that point to me. I know how active he has been in discussions about the Bill, and what a constructive attitude he has adopted. It is only because of a most pressing engagement in his constituency that he is unable to be present.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Having served on the Committee, I intervene briefly to welcome the attitude of my right hon. Friend the Minister to the new clause. I was a little worried that he might allow the resource implications to override his better judgment and so feel unable to support new clause 12. It is a great relief to many Conservative Members, as well as Labour Members, that he has given his support.
I wish to tempt providence a tiny bit by mentioning resources. When the Bill is passed, I hope that my right hon. Friend will make every effort to find the necessary resources. I am slightly anxious especially about the new clause. Once it has been recognised that it is necessary for the steps to be taken, it would be wrong for the Government unnecessarily to delay their implementation. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will note that that view is expressed from the Conservative Benches and not by the Opposition.
I completely accept what my right hon. Friend said about the administrative details. I will not examine his comments in great detail, but I know that much discussion has taken place among those who are much better qualified than I on the precise wording of new clause 12 to obtain the necessary support for those who come out of full time local education systems and to ensure a continuing care programme. I believe that some minor adjustments will be


necessary. However, I completely welcome the new clause and wish the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) every success with the remainder of his Bill.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): I should like to say a few words about new clauses 2 and 3. In the light of the comment of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health about new clause 7, what I shall say about new clause 2 will be a great deal less than it might otherwise have been.
New clause 2 would have had substantially the same effect in Scotland as new clause 7 has for England and Wales. Clause 3 of the Bill as originally drafted, was based upon legislation that applies to England and Wales. The Bill simply sought to apply that to Scotland without amendment. However, the legislation on special educational needs differs substantially between England and Wales on the one hand and Scotland on the other. A separate provision is therefore required if that part of the Bill is to be applied in Scotland.
New clause 2 would have paralleled new clause 7, but, as my right hon. Friend has explained, the Government have decided not to move new clause 7 but to agree to new clause 12. In the light of that, I will not move new clause 2 but I shall have to arrange for a parallel provision to be introduced in another place to ensure that there is some application to Scotland, and that that is equivalent to new clause 12 as new clause 2 would have been for new clause 7. The House must fully understand that I shall not move new clause 2 but I shall arrange in another place, for a parallel provision to be moved to the new clause accepted by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Before the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland concludes his speech, will he accept that I welcome his comments as warmly as I welcomed the comments of his right hon. Friend earlier?

Mr. John MacKay: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment.
I should like to say a few words about new clause 3 as I know that the House wants to make progress. The provisions of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, as amended, deal with children with special educational needs and are generally effective. However, improvements can always be made in the light of experience, and the Bill provides the opportunity to make four minor but not unimportant changes. That is the purpose of new clause 3.
The first proposal in subsection (2) is simple. It seeks to amend section 4 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 so that the child guidance service should in future be called the regional or island authority psychological service. The reason for that is that the benefits of the service are not confined to children. Child guidance clinics are also attended by young persons up to the age of 19 and the definition of those clinics as child guidance clinics can put 17, 18 and 19-year-olds off the idea of attending such clinics.
10.15 am
Subsection (3) and the amendments that we propose to section 61 of the 1980 Act set out the elements of the examination and assessment of a child which must be undertaken before that child may be recorded as having special educational needs. There are three elements there.

First, there must be a medical examination, secondly there must be a psychological examination and finally a report must be made by a teacher who has been involved in the education of the child. We intend to replace the need for three reports with a single process of observation assessment which must include educational, psychological and medical components. The purpose of that is to bring the legislation into line with the best current professional practice where it is accepted that children are best observed over a period and in the classroom rather than assessed on the basis of separate examinations. Although the proposal is unavoidably a lengthier process, it provides for a much more complete picture of the child and the child's needs. That will strengthen the legislation, not weaken it.
The amendments contained in subsection (4) concern the appointment of the named person. The named person is someone appointed by the education authority under section 62 of the 1980 Act to whom parents of children may go for advice and information about the child's special educational needs. The concept of the named person is a good one. However, that provision has been a source of irritation in cases where parents are capable of looking after the best interests of a child. In such circumstances the parents may resent the statutory imposition of an outsider in their family affairs.
I have some sympathy with that point of view and I can understand such feelings. I therefore propose that in future parents should be given the opportunity to tell an education authority that they do not wish to have a person appointed to assist them. I envisage that in the majority of cases the appointment of the named person will continue to be appropriate. The amendment provides for those cases where it is not. It will be necessary for parents explicitly to opt out of the appointment of a named person.
I should now like to consider the correction of an anomoly in section 63(1) of the 1980 Act where a right is given to parents to appeal against the decision to record their child, against the terms of the record, against the nominated school and against the refusal of a placing request. There is, however, no right of appeal against an authority's decision not to record a child. That is unjust because it denies a right of appeal against the action of an authority which in effect may deny a child the very considerable benefits that can flow from the recording a special educational need. That position should be corrected. Such a right of appeal already exists in England and Wales and by inserting a new subsection (aa) into section 63 by the amendment contained in subsection (5), Scottish parents will be given a similar right.
The amendment proposed in subsection (6) to section 64 of the 1980 Act is a technical amendment. It follows from the amendment of section 63(1).
I apologise for speaking at length, but I thought it appropriate to explain the series of amendments arising from our decision that some reform was needed of the law on educational provision for children with special needs. I hope that the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) and the House will agree to accept the new clause.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I reassure the House that there is no question of the Scottish team on the Opposition Front Bench doing a double act throughout the day with my right hon. Friend the Member for


Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). Indeed, there is only one other point of importance to Scotland in which I might like to intervene later in the proceedings.
I shall speak briefly as we wish to expedite the business and so make progress. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on his considerable success today and on the promotion of this important Bill. I thought that the Minister had a slight edge in his voice when he thanked my hon. Friend for his intervention. I suspect that that is a compliment to the tenacity, persistence and the cutting edge of the representations and lobbying that have been carried out. There has been a suggestion of a dragging of feet and a reluctance in the Scottish Office over taking the open and generous view that the Bill deserves. I am delighted that new clause 2 is not being moved and that new clause 12 is accepted in principle by the Scottish Office and by the Minister's colleagues south of the Border. That represents an important change of heart by the Government which the Opposition greatly welcome.
I should like to make a point that has universal application to the Scottish Office. There are clearly resource implications in new clause 12, however it may be redrafted and tied up in administrative terms. The Opposition welcome that, as the resources will be put to an important use and will be most helpful. However, we hope that the Government will be prepared to live constructively with such resource implications and recognise that they cannot be accepted at the expense of other social work services or services for the disabled. I hope that that will be borne in mind when the strange alchemy of the rate support grant for Scotland is finalised in future.
However, I believe that the Government have made a sensible concession to sound common sense and to the experience of many people who have had practical experience of such work.
In connection with new clause 3, I intend to follow the admirable brevity of my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West and note that it has been read most adequately into the record by the Minister, who suffers from the delusion that people read his speeches. I simply say that the Opposition welcome that new clause.

Mr. Tim Yeo: I had hoped to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, before my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland made their speeches. I am glad that I did not, because I can be briefer than I would have been.
I warmly welcome the response of the Minister for Health in accepting the new clause. It shows the constructive spirit which has informed the negotiations between the Bill's sponsor and the Minister. I congratulate the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) and my right hon. Friend on their progress. I welcome the new clause also because it will help the group of young people who have suffered in the past.
I know from my experience that many youngsters who have been given special education and made great progress physically and mentally and to whom considerable resources have been devoted have often dropped out of the system on leaving school. Considerable distress has been caused to their families by the reversal in their progress. To a great extent, the professional and other efforts made

while those children were at school have been wasted. The new clause will ensure that the progress made at the school is not lost.

Mr. Eric Forth: I did not serve on the Committee, but I have a great interest in the Bill. I join those hon. Members who have congratulated the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on introducing the Bill. I follow the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) and for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) in emphasising to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health that those of us who may from time to time take a slightly parsimonious attitude to Government matters are anxious that all the resources needed should be found to fulfil the agreed measures behind this important Bill.
I add my voice to those of other Conservative Members who give their support in seeking the resources needed to fulfil the Bill's excellent objectives. I hope that my right hon. Friend will use that message as he sees fit.

Mr. Hayhoe: I am advised that there probably need not be any delay in implementing the new clause. I hope that its provisions will apply soon.
To avoid doubt in this complicated group of measures, I point out that new clause 12 will be accepted by me and, I hope, my colleagues. New clauses 2 and 7 will not be moved. New clause 3 will be moved and, I hope, accepted. Amendment No. 3 will be moved and I hope, accepted.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I, too, should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on introducing the Bill. I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health for accepting new clause 12, because it will fill a gap faced by parents of children in this position.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause 11

PERSONS DISCHARGED FROM HOSPITAL (NO.2)

'(1) Where a person is to be discharged from a hospital after having received medical treatment for a mental disorder as an inpatient for a continuous period of not less than 6 months ending with the date on which he is to be discharged, then (subject to subsection (3)) the managers of the hospital shall make arrangements for an assesment, before the date of discharge, of the needs of that person for the provision of any services for that person in accordance with any of the welfare enactments in conjunction with—

(a) the local authority for the area in which it appears to the managers that that person is likely to reside after being discharged, and
(b) where that person will be under the age of 19 on that date, the appropriate officer or authority

(2) Where—

(a) a person liable to be detained under the 1983 Act or the 1984 Act is discharged from a hospital in pursuance of an order for his immediate discharge made by a Mental Health Review Tribunal or, in Scotland, by the sheriff, and
(b) he is so discharged after having received medical treatment for mental disorder as an in-patient in a hospital for a continuous period of not less than 6 months ending with the date of his discharge.

then (subject to subsection (3)) the managers of the hospital shall make arrangements for an assessment of the needs of that person in accordance with subsection (1) above as soon as is reasonably practicable.

(3) Nothing in subsection (1) or (2) shall require athe managers of a hospital to make arrangements for an assessment of the needs of a person who has requested that no such arrangements should be made under this section.

(4) In this section—
the appropriate officer or authority" means—

(a) where the local authority referred to in subsection (1)(a) is a local education authority, such officer discharging functions of that authority in its capacity as a local education authority as may be appointed by them for the purposes of this section;
(b) where that local authority is not a local education authority, the Inner London Education Authority;

"hospital"—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, means—

(i) a health service hospital within the meaning of the 1977 Act, or
(ii) any accommodation provided by any person pursuant to arrangements made under section 23(1) of that Act (voluntary organisations and other bodies) and used as a hospital; and

(b) in relation to Scotland, means a health service hospital within the meaning of the 1978 Act.

"the managers"—

(a) in relation to—

(i) a health service hospital within the meaning of the 1977 Act (other than a special hospital),
(ii) a health service hospital within the meaning of the 1978 Act (other than a State hospital), or
(iii) any accommodation provided by a local authority and used as a hospital by or on behalf of the Secretary of State under the 1977 Act.

means the District Health Authority or special health authority, or (as the case may be) the Health Board within the meaning of the 1978 Act, who are responsible for the administration of the hospital;
(b) in relation to a special hospital, means the Secretary of State;
(c) in relation to a State hospital, means a State Hospital Management Committee constituted by the Secretary of State to manage the hospital on his behalf or (where no such committee has been constituted) the Secretary of State; and
(d) in relation to any other hospital, means the person for the time being having the management of the hospital;

"medical treatment"—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, has the meaning given by section 145(1) of the 1983 Act; and
(b) in relation to Scotland, has the meaning given by section 125(1) of the 1984 Act;


"special hospital" means a special hospital within the meaning of the 1977 Act; and
"State hospital" means a State hospital within the meaning of the 1984 Act.'—[Mr. Tom Clarke.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 6—Persons discharged from hospital—

'(1) Where a person is to be discharged from a hospital after having received medical treatment for mental disorder as an in-patient in a hospital for a continuous period of not less than 6 months ending with the date on which he is to be discharged, then (subject to subsection (3)) the managers of the hospital shall give written notification of that date—


(a) to the local authority for the area in which it appears to the managers that that person is likely to reside after being discharged, and
(b) where that person will be under the age of 19 on that date, to the appropriate officer or authority,

as soon as is reasonably practicable after that date is known to the managers.

(2) Where—

(a) a person liable to be detained under the 1983 Act or the 1984 Act is discharged from a hospital in pursuance of an order for his immediate discharge made by a Mental Health Review Tribunal or, in Scotland, by the sheriff, and
(b) he is so discharged after having received medical treatment for mental disorder as an in-patient in a hospital for a continuous period of not less than 6 months ending with the date of his discharge,

then (subject to subsection (3)) the managers of the hospital shall give written notification of that person's discharge in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) as soon as is reasonably practicable.

(3) Nothing in subsection (1) or (2) shall require the managers of a hospital to give a notification under that subsection in respect of a person who has requested that information about his discharge should not be given under this section.

(4) In this section—
the appropriate officer or authority means—

(a) where the local authority referred to in subsection (1) (a) are a local education authority, such officer discharging functions of that authority in its capacity as a local education authority as may be appointed by them for the purposes of this section;
(b) where that local authority are not a local education authority, the Inner London Education Authority;

"hospital"—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, means—

(i) a health service hospital within the meaning of the 1977 Act, or
(ii) any accommodation provided by any person pursuant to arrangements made under section 23(1) of that Act (voluntary organisations and other bodies) and used as a hospital; and

(b) in relation to Scotland, means a health service hospital within the meaning of the 1978 Act;

"the managers"—
(a) in relation to—

(i) a health service hospial within the meaning of the 1977 Act (other than a special hospital),
(ii) a health service hospital within the meaning of the 1978 Act (other than a State hospital), or
(iii) any accommodation provided by a local authority and used as a hospital by or on behalf of the Secretary of State under the 1977 Act,

means the District Health Authority or special health authority, or (as the case may be) the Health Board within the meaning of the 1978 Act, who are responsible for the administration of the hospital;

(b) in relation to a special hospital, means the Secretary of State;
(c) in relation to a State hospital, means a State Hospital Management Committee constituted by the Secretary of State to manage the hospital on his behalf or (where no such committee has been constituted) the Secretary of State; and
(d) in relation to any other hospital, means the persons for the time being having the management of the hospital;

"medical treatment"—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, has the meaning given by section 145(1) of the 1983 Act; and
(b) in relation to Scotland, has the meaning given by section 125(1) of the 1984 Act,




"special hospital" means a special hospital within the meaning of the 1977 Act; and
"State hospital" means a State hospital within the meaning of the 1984 Act.'.

New clause 14—Persons discharged from hospital (No. 3)—

'(1) It shall be the duty of the responsible medical officer for any person who has received medical treatment for mental disorder as an in-patient for a period of, or periods totalling not less than, six months in the preceding twelve months or on a regular basis over two years, to prepare a care plan for that person before he is discharged from hospital. Such a care plan shall take into account individual requirements and include as appropriate proposals for medical treatment, day care and accommodation. Such a care plan shall be prepared by the responsible medical officer in consultation with other Health Authority Officers, the local Family Practitioner Committee, the Local Authority and relevant voluntary organisations. No disabled person shall be discharged from hospital until a care plan has been adopted.

(2) The responsible medical officer shall prepare a written statement setting out the care plan and inform the disabled person and, when appointed, his representative of the details of the plan.

(3) If the disabled person or his authorised representative is dissatisfied with any matter set out in the care plan, that person may, within such reasonable period as the authority may allow for the purpose, make further representations to the responsible medical officer.

(4) Where any such representations have been made in accordance with subsection (3) above the responsible medical officer shall reconsider the details of the care plan and inform the disabled person or his authorised representative of his final decision.

(5) In this section—

"representations" means representations made orally or in writing (or both);
"the responsible medical officer, medical treatment and mental disorder" shall have the meaning assigned to them by the Mental Health Act 1983.'.

Amendment No. 4.

Mr. Clarke: New clause 11 deals with an extremely important aspect—the problem of persons leaving hospital. Our objective is to require assessment before discharge from hospital for people who have received in-patient treatment for mental disorder for at least six months. We pursued that matter in Committee. The new clause attempts to reflect some of the responses we received.

The Times of 17 February this year stated:
A doctor should not discharge a patient before satisfying himself that there is a satisfactory pattern of living awaiting him … No individual should be discharged into a situation where services do not exist".
The author of those words was the Secretary of State for Social Services. My clause, is, therefore, his policy, the policy of the Mental Health Act Commission and everyone's policy, so why not put it on the statute book? I hope that the Minister for Health will accept what we are trying to achieve.

Government new clause 6 merely requires notification by hospitals to the social services as proposed in their consultation paper. The AMA says:
Notifying social services departments … is on its own a waste of paper.
Both the AMA and the ACC would prefer the assessment to be instigated by the hospital, and that is reflected in new clause 11. I have tried to respond constructively to the suggestions of those who will have to implement the Bill.

The AMA said:
Notifying social services departments of impending or actual hospital discharges is, on its own, a waste of paper … We cannot see the Government's proposals as anything other than a token gesture which in some cases will do more harm than good. It would be unfortunate if routine notifications took the place of considered assessments and real attempts to arrange suitable

facilities before discharge. The Government should be under no illusions that by its present proposal it is killing off an important aspect of the original Bill.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists wrote to me saying:
Psychiatrists will applaud your efforts to obtain adequate community facilities for patients discharged from hospitals and we would wish to support you in this.

New clause 11 follows Government new clause 6 practically verbatim, except that it substitutes "assessing" for "notification". If the hospital is to take the lead responsibility for the assessment in conjunction with the social services, no separate formal notification is required. Because of the Government restrictions elsewhere in the Bill, I have limited the scope of assessments to the "welfare enactments", although other matters, such as housing, will clearly be of prime importance. Because of the general welcome of the principle, I have no doubt that hospitals will seek to broaden the scope of the assessment as appropriate in each case. In this as in other matters we have tried, reluctantly, to accommodate the Government's views.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, in bringing forward the new clause, he has answered most of the criticisms of those worried by bureaucracy and has retained the core of the argument about assessment? This is a good compromise on which we can all build for the future.

Mr. Clarke: We have tried to do that while conceding the vital principle of arranging for proper assessment before hospital discharge.
I have dropped the 28-day requirement of the original Bill in a further attempt to meet the Government's concerns. I have accepted, with great regret and reluctance, the exclusion of people who have totalled six months' treatment in a year but whose period in hospital has not been continuous. To me, it seems axiomatic that those caught in the revolving door syndrome need the best possible assessment because the support they have had has obviously proved inadequate. If the House accepts the clause, I hope that the Department will suggest to authorities that they can extend the procedures required by the Bill to other patients at their discretion. I am sure that they would wish to do so. There is no substitute for good example, and best practice has its own appeal.
Of course, the authorities are concerned about costs—not so much the cost of assessments, which I think will be on average only one or two a week for each health authority, but the cost of providing community care for mentally ill people where practically nothing exists at present. Ministers have been proclaiming the priority of mental illness for more than 10 years and much of the specific funding from the Department has gone to this sector.
I must admit that, from the publicity Ministers have obtained, I thought that the sums involved were significantly greater than those revealed in a reply to me last Wednesday when the Minister said that the group which causes most concern, the adult mentally ill, had received only £5 million, with another £6 million in the pipeline. Even so, it is difficult to know whether the Department has obtained value for money, and one reason is that authorities are operating in a legislative vacuum. The Mental Health Act 1983 failed to pay more than lip service to the key liaison between authorities over discharge.
10.30 am
On Second Reading I said that the Bill would need to be phased, in consultation with the authorities. The Minister has said that he will not bring parts of the Bill into effect without the necessary resources. I shall refer to that matter generally on Third Reading. Again I am trying hard to accommodate the Minister's position. Where we may differ is in our estimates of the cost and the priority which should be given to disabled people, not in relation to other recipients of the health and social services but other areas of Government expenditure.
On new clause 11, I am fully prepared for implementation to be delayed slightly longer than other clauses in the Bill in order to allow adequate preparation. Of course there is nothing to stop authorities setting up the procedures in advance of a firm target date which I hope will be not later than the financial year 1988–89. However, I think it is right to allow sufficient time for plans for the necessary services to be developed in those areas where the mentally ill are offered next to nothing at present.
This would allow for two full cycles of rate support grant settlement negotiations as well as allocation from joint finance, and so on. I must repeat, however, that I expect the clause to save money in the medium term by significantly reducing hospital readmissions and enabling many ex-patients to achieve eventually stable lives in the community with a minimum of statutory support. The social impact of this change would be immeasurable and immensely worth while. For that reason, we who support the Bill see it as one of our leading priorities and we hope that the Minister for Health will respond in that light.

Mr. Roy Galley: New clause 14 goes a little further in some ways than new clause 11. However, it covers substantially the same ground and it is motivated by the basic conviction that by itself notification will be insufficient in the circumstances which face us. The new clause proposes that individual care plans should be implemented for all the mentally ill and mentally handicapped people who are discharged from hospitals into the community. This was a key recommendation of the Social Services Committee's report on community care. A considerable amount of evidence was given to the Committee—both formal evidence and during visits that were made throughout the country and abroad—to the effect that detailed thought must be given to the arrangements that are made for patients when they are discharged from hospital. The Committee said that the evidence:
highlights that sometimes dismal lack of co-operation between the many professions involved in care and treatment of mentally ill people. Evidence was also received of instances where the families of the patients were never informed of their relative's discharge. Insufficient effort would seem to be devoted on occasions to tracking a discharged patient. What is needed is a positive determination to improve the practice on discharges. Parliament laid down, in section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983, a duty of after-care for detained patients. There is no reason now why a similar regime should not apply to all mental patients, whether statutory or not.
That is the kernel of the argument in new clause 14. The success of community care for the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped and the development of new and enlightened policies is vital for us all. There is enormous evidence that the very principle would have a curative effect on many individuals. Therefore, it is important that it should work.
New clause 11 and new clause 14 seek to help the Government to ensure that the community care policy works. It will work only if adequate arrangements are made for those who are discharged from our large institutions. There should be a wide range of opportunities that are geared to the particular needs of each person on discharge. A small, institutionalised form of asylum may be needed, or hospitals, or houses with varying levels of staff support, or a return to the family, or a number of other possibilities.
The clause seeks to provide individual arrangements for those who are discharged, including medical treatment and, where appropriate, day care facilities and accommodation. The clause puts the onus on the responsible medical officer. He is responsible for the oversight of a patient's treatment while he is in hospital. He seems, therefore, to be the right person to have that co-ordinating responsibility.
The new clause says:
No disabled person shall be discharged from hospital until a care plan has been adopted.
The medical officer would have a duty to liaise with other parts of the health authority and also with the local authority, the relevant voluntary organisation and so on.
New clause 14 would not result in significant open-ended cost implications. The clause provides that people would stay in hospital until appropriate community facilities were available. It tries to deal with the revolving door problem—with those whom the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) called "yo-yo" patients. There is no care strategy for them. They may not be long-term inpatients; they keep going into and coming out of hospital. Care planning needs to take that group of people into account.
The wording of the new clause may not be entirely ideal, but when making arrangements for discharge it is necessary that this group should be included. Therefore I urge my right hon. Friend to accept either new clause 11 or new clause 14. It is vital that our community care policies for the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped should work. If they fail, public confidence may be lost and that would lead to pressure to put the policy into reverse. That would not be in the interests of the Government or of the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped. By accepting one or other of these amendments the Government will, I hope, help to buttress a successful policy.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I agree substantially with what the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) has just said. New clause 11 contains the words
not less than 6 months.
That is merely a guideline. Discharge from long-term hospitals is usually after a much longer period than that. It would be a form of refined cruelty if people who had been in hospital for long periods were to be discharged without their needs having been assessed. This goes to the nub of the matter.
I am certain that the Minister will accept this new clause. It is a wise move. If we are to pursue the policy of bringing these people back into the community, it is, as I said earlier, a form of refined cruelty not to make an assessment of their needs and to provide for those needs. Therefore, I ask both Ministers to accept either new clause 11 or new clause 14. That would make a success of the concept of bringing these people back into the community where they rightly belong.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I understand why my right hon. Friend should be anxious about the resource implications of what is required. The provisions that have already been made are severely inadequate. However, this is a further example of the tangled web that my right hon. Friend has inherited, for which he is not responsible. He is faced with the difficulty of one pocket of public expenditure suddenly being expected to acept a cost that hitherto has been borne by another pocket of public expenditure. We have to look closely at the extension of joint funding arrangements to enable one element of the caring services to accept a cost which is being saved by another element of the caring services.
Many of the cost implications tend to be exaggerated because, in the past, we have not been sufficiently imaginative to consider alternative ways of handling some of these problems. Many mentally ill patients require, as much as anything, the maintenance of a regular contact with a caring person. Such a person does not need to be highly skilled. The administration of such a service through the local authorities is enormously expensive, no matter how careful the local authority may be in its spending. The administrative costs and the costs of running headquarters are high.
The Community Service Volunteers has helped to sponsor the creation, in Sunderland, of a home help co-operative. It is an imaginative scheme, which should be used on a wider scale. A group of women have set themselves up as a co-operative to provide home help care. They are paid local authority rates but, as they have no overheads, the service costs considerably less than if it were provided directly through the local authority. I believe that there is scope for providing such imaginative support ad I hope that it will be extended. I am aware that the scheme has the support of my right hon. Friend's Department as well as other Government Departments.
It is an imaginative scheme and, if adopted, the cost of providing care in the community, which many patients need to prevent them from going back through the revolving door, could be cut to a point where the anxieties of my right hon. Friend could be minimised.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I add my name to the long list of people in the House and in the country who have paid tribute to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). He has presented the Bill with characteristic style and detail. On behalf of my colleagues, I support the points which have already been made on new clause 11.
There has been a great deal of public comment—the Minister has also commented on it—on the anxiety concerning resources. It is critical to remember that this new clause concerns assessment and the potential for net savings on existing hospital facilities from a proper assessment of what could and should be made available in the community for patients when they have been discharged.
The new clause should be considered in the context of saving health authority and local authority expenditure in the long term. The demands of patients must be adequately met and there must be proper planning. The hon. Member for Monklands, West sketched out the feasibility of a possible two-year time scale, and that is a sensible plan.
It is important to stress to the Minister that we are all aware that too often community care has been based on the revolving door syndrome. Too often state provision has

been inadequate and back-up facilities have not existed in the community. There are genuine difficulties in the community. There is a cycle of hospital admission, discharge and readmission. Anything which helps to overcome that appalling and distressing cycle is surely to be warmly supported. I hope that the Minister will give his warm support to the new clause.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of new clause 14 which has been explained adequately by my hon. Friend the Member for Halfax (Mr. Galley). I am encouraged by the present atmosphere of general support in the House for the Bill, suitably amended, reaching the statute book. It is a credit to the House and the way in which we approach such a subject.
Recently there was an excellent series of articles in The Times by Marjorie Wallace describing the problems which affect many families whose children become mentally ill. When my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax presented new clause 14 he was considering such cases. Youngsters in a family may be fine and fit for many years but, in their teens, or perhaps later, when they go to university, there is a sudden onset of mental illness which may result in the young person going to hospital. What happens then?
All to often—this process has been described in many articles and papers, so I will not go into detail—these young people are discharged from hospital and are returned to their families. There are often appalling, distressing scenes and the young person may leave the family and become a vagrant. He may return to hospital and be discharged again. The community care, which we all support, does not materialise.
10.45 am
A young person with this type of disability does not know what he wants. He may want to be discharged from hospital but it may not be the right time. For this reason, new clause 14 is pertinent to the problem. There is a great deal of hidden distress in Britain because of that problem.
I strongly emphasise the need for the Government and my right hon. Friend to consider seriously what has been said on new clause 11 and especially new clause 14. I hope that my hon. Friends and Opposition Members will do all that they can to support the principle behind the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax. We must support principles which are designed to help people, especially young people, in distress.

Mr. Ashley: I commend new clause 11 and the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) presented it. He did so in the constructive spirit which has animated the debate. I hope that the Minister will feel able to respond to that.
I do not know whether the Minister or other hon. Members have been in hospital. I have a few times and, after a couple of weeks, I have felt disorientated. Of the 15,000 mentally handicapped people who leave hospital, more than 10,000 have been in hospital for two years. One cannot expect them to leave hospital without being in distress; to help them they must be given assessment and resources.
I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones). To impose such bad conditions on those people is not refined cruelty but unrefined cruelty. If the clause is accepted—I am sure the Minister will find it constructive—it will help people who ought to be receiving help under existing legislation.
If the Minister can accept the clause, it will be appreciated, and will save him money. It costs £12,000 to keep a person in hospital. The Minister, by accepting the clause, would help the House, himself and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. No one can be more constructive than that.

Mr. Michael Stern: I should like to add my name to the long list of the those who have congratulated the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on introducing a Bill which will undoubtedly mark significant progress in treatment of and care for, especially, the mentally handicapped. I am most grateful to him for that.
Like many of my colleagues, I accept the need for provision for the assessment of patients who leave hospital after a long stay. It is essential that we go further than the hon. Member for Monklands, West has proposed. May I offer the hon. Gentleman a small warning not to be too prescriptive about the method of assessment? I know from constituency experience that the health authority must often take the lead when providing assessment. That function is usually performed by the authority in which the patient is to live, but it would often be more appropriate if the sending authority did the assessment.
I represent part of the county of Avon—if one accepts that the county of Avon exists—which has for years accepted patients from many parts of the country. It is not known until shortly before they are discharged whether patients still have family connections in those parts of the country from which they came.
As patients leave hospital—there has been a substantial drop in the number of patients in one hospital in my constituency during the past year—the local authority finds itself dealing with not one or five local authorities but nearer 50. That puts a tremendous burden on the health authority in ensuring that patients are provided for unless those other authorities give substantial help. Even then, there is an enormous burden on hospital administration.
A couple who have recently been discharged from a mental hospital are attempting to negotiate with a health authority in the south of England for their brother to stay with them permanently. The difficulties have fallen almost entirely on the local authority because of the distances involved. It has been unable to do much planning of the care that the discharged patient will receive.
I am anxious that we should not, by making prescriptions in the Bill, debar the appropriate method or organisation of assessment from being pursued in what will inevitably be a large number of individual cases with peculiar requirements. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister can say to what extent the many forms of assessment currently practised can be encouraged in the Bill.

Mr. Martin Flannery: I should like to add my voice to those who have supported my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), whose restrained marshalling of arguments is such a valuable contribution.
I have a major mental hospital in my constituency and I have had contacts with it, although not as many as I would have hoped. I was a head teacher in the area, and it is amazing how one knows what is going on in families

when there is mental illness. If families try to look after a sick person and do not receive support, that person will have to go back to hospital depressed and ill once again. It is morally indefensible to let people out of hospital without proper assessment and support. As the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) said, the melancholy process of coming out of hospital and going back in must be more costly.
My hon. Friend has raised such a fundamental issue that the Bill must go through, especially in view of the large number of the ill and compassionate people who are watching the events in the House today.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: I too would like to speak briefly on this group of new clauses and the amendment concerning hospital discharge, which has been a matter of considerable concern to many of us, especially those of us who have been involved with administering services in major cities, which have tended to attract people who have been discharged, whether voluntarily or against their will.
I am sorry that I have not been able to take part in debates on the Bill or in the Committee but, like several hon. Members present, those of us who take an interest have been removed from public life, as it were, to serve on the Social Security Bill. I look forward to seeing an end to that as well.
I welcome the thrust of the Bill and greatly hope to see it on the statute book, preferably as soon as possible, but those who are a little cautious have genuine reasons for our concern. Neither the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) nor anyone else should imply that we do not care. It is all too easy to write tough legislation, put it on the statute book and then wonder why it is unworkable. It is all too easy to create statutory obligations for local authorities without a thought to the resources that they have to find, and then puzzle about the long list of statutory obligations that local authorities do not carry out. Good will just is not enough.
I am one of those who had to administer previous legislation which had those glaring faults. I think especially of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. To make it all work these cautions should be taken into account. A step-by-step approach is more likely to achieve the desired objectives.
I should like to put on record my unconditional admiration of all concerned, especially with regard to the efforts that they have made behind the scenes and in Committee to come to some agreement. I hope from the bottom of my heart that we can achieve our objective today without dividing the House and that we can reach a unanimous view on what we are trying to do. How nice that would be.
New clause 6 is a great practical improvement on the original clause 4. The hon. Member for Monklands, West has said which of the restrictive elements in that clause he has been willing to remove. The 28 days element would have made life just about impossible for everyone in local authorities who tried to administer it.
The Bill that emerged from Committee emphasised social services departments, and so did the hon. Member for Monklands, West when he introduced this debate. It is important that housing should be included because the first thing that a person needs on discharge from hospital is somewhere to live. In that respect, new clauses 11 and 6 are major improvements, because they speak of the local


authority rather than just of the local authority social services department. There are local authority departments for whom disabled people may be a much lower priority, who ought to be involved. I am glad that the new clauses make that point.
The hon. Gentleman also said that notifying the social services department is a waste of paper. I understand that he was quoting some of the representations that have been made on the Bill. Surely that is not so. For many of the years in the 1970s we in Birmingham were bedevilled by people on the streets. They had been discharged from hospitals all over the country, especially Scotland, given a train ticket to Birmingham and, in one or two cases, the address of a lodging house, and sent on their way. The local authority, which wanted to assist, was bedevilled by not knowing how many people there were in that position or where they came from.

11 am

Mr. Tom Clarke: The organisation which took the view that it was a waste of paper was saying, in effect, that notification was exclusively a waste of paper and was not meaningful in the absense of full assessment, which is what the new clause seeks to achieve.

Mrs. Currie: I take that point. I would merely say that we do not have any notification at present. Local authorities which have good will, and which in many cases could find the resources to assist, find it extremely difficult to undertake any sort of planning when they do not know with whom they may be dealing. In the cases to which I have referred, people were literally picked out of dustbins. We had no idea from where they came and we were in ignorance of their background. Frequently, they were incapable of giving us that information. That made it extremely difficult to make any sort of arrangements for them. There was no liaison. My judgment at that time was that the health authorities and the hospitals concerned were willing to avoid liaison. They felt that they had done their duty and were content to send people on their way. That was wrong.
I shall direct a few remarks to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) and comment on the excellent way in which he introduced new clause 14. My hon. Friend said that notification is not enough, and that is right. However, as long as we do not have notification, we should welcome moves in that direction. I suspect that if my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health had introduced a small Bill containing all the clauses that he is keen to support this morning, we would all have welcomed it as an example of some progress being made in helping the disabled.
I am worried about new clause 14—my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax knows that I have the greatest sympathy for it, having served with him on the Select Committee on Social Services—because of the power that is proposed within it and the command that is given over resources. I suspect that we shall end up by taking power out of the hands of elected representatives, where it should remain.
As the clause stands, an enormous amount of effort could be put into writing perfection into all care plans and producing exactly what would be required for every year of discharge of a disabled person's lifetime, only to find that resources are not available to do what is required. Alternatively, the committees involved might direct

priorities elsewhere. When I had responsibilities for these matters in Birmingham, I can remember being asked on one occasion whether I would be prepared to release resources for much favoured plans to help redevelop the centre of the city to save it from dereliction. I took the view that those plans were rather more important than other considerations. We hoped to maintain the rate basis of the city and so produce resources in future to assist the disabled and everyone else we wanted to help. If we write perfection into all care plans, they may end up on the shelf, in common with much other planning. The law would be complied with, but that would not be good enough. That would not be sufficient.
When a local authority knows that a person is coming out of hospital, the planning process should start. We should write into law the liaison that should take place between the authorities concerned. That is the bedrock of getting any decent discharge plan going. That is the sine quo non. Unfortunately, that is not set out in the law, The Bill, with wise amendments, will give considerable assistance to the disabled and I hope that we shall see it make progress today.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I rise to endorse new clause 11 from the Opposition Front Bench. I am pleased to do so because it is an important new clause which merits the support of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Ministers in successive Governments have for years pressed for joint planning and joint assessment of residents who are being considered for planned discharge from hospital. That being so, and in the light of the successful use of joint funding and other resource allocation changes to facilitate such collaboration, it is surely untenable to object to procedures which require hospitals to give reasonable notice to the local authority—so that timely and proper assessment can take place—when they propose to discharge a patient.
I have known many cases where people have had to be swiftly readmitted to hospital because there was no knowledge by the local authority of their discharge from hospital. That can be costly as well as inhumane. My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) was eminently right to say that there could be savings in the medium term. There will be cost implications in the short term entirely due to the poor level of services for the mentally ill at present. In many authorities the level of services, as I am sure the Minister for Health will agree, is regrettably very low indeed.
There is an important gap that the clause seeks to fill and it deserves the support of both sides of the House. I hope that we shall not have to divide to ensure that the clause is added to the Bill.

Mr. Hayhoe: We have had a useful short debate in which many helpful suggestions have been made, some of which have gone rather wider than the legislative detail that is before us. Perhaps it would not be appropriate for me to respond to many of these suggestions, and I am not sure that I would be able to do so without considerably more research. I can assure those who have contributed to the debate that their contributions will be considered carefully, including their suggestions that certain ideas should be more widely adopted.
I welcome the general support that has emerged from this short debate for the broad thrust of the community care


concept of moving people, wherever appropriate, out of institutional care into the more dignified, the more human and the more—

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Therapeutic?

Mr. Hayhoe: Yes—therapeutic atmosphere. That is the word that I was after. It is a move that improves their own physical standards. One sees remarkable improvements in people as a result of moving them from institutions into the community. That is in no way to criticise those who contribute to the running of our large institutions. I would not wish to do other than pay tribute to them. I do not believe that in commending community care we are seeking to deny the great dedication that comes from the majority of those who work in the institutions.

Mr. Pavitt: Give 'em the money, Barney.

Mr. Hayhoe: I think that it will be useful for the record to make it clear that clause 4 as it stands would place a duty on hospital managers to inform the relevant social services department of the date of discharge—at least 28 days in advance—of any person who had received treatment for mental disorder as an inpatient for periods totalling six months or more in the preceding 12 months period. Notification would be subject to the patient's consent. Social services departments, on receipt of this information, would undertake an assessment of that person's needs within 28 days.
These provisions arouse concern within the Government although the intention behind the clause was very much in line with their general philosophy of community care, which the Government have been promoting in various ways. It seeks to enshrine in legislation what is already accepted good practice. But it would introduce procedures that are unnecessarily prescriptive and would cause problems in practice. It would place the responsibility for assessment of patients about to be discharged from psychiatric hospitals in all cases on social services departments. It is right that social services should contribute to assessments, but hospital authorities with current responsibility for the patient should normally be in the lead. There would be great difficulties if the hospital authorities were not very much involved.
A minimum period of 28 days for notifying social services of a patient's discharge would, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) said, impose unacceptable administrative constraint on both health and local authorities. The formula for adding up periods of short-term care in hospital would cause problems. It is not uncommon for people with mental disorder to spend frequent short spells as inpatients. The notification process could be triggered off unnecessarily at frequent intervals.
The Government's new clause 6 would require hospital managers, unless the patient objects, to inform the appropriate local authority—social services department, or, in the case of people under 19, local authority—of the expected date of discharge of an inpatient who had been receiving treatment for a mental disorder for a continuous period of at least six months, as soon as it is reasonably practicable to do so. It would require hospital managers, in the case of a mental health review tribunal

directing the immediate discharge of such a patient, to inform the local authority that discharge had taken place, provided the patient does not object.
There are two alternatives to the Government's new clause 6. I shall briefly deal with new clause 14 proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley). The new clause would require the responsible medical officer to prepare a care plan before discharge for any person who had
received medical treatment for mental disorder as an in-patient for a period, of or periods totalling not less than, six months in the preceding twelve months or on a regular basis over two years.
The care plan would have to be prepared in consultation with other health authority officers, the local family practitioner committee, the local authority and relevant voluntary organisations. No disabled person could be discharged from hospital until a care plan had been adopted. The new clause further provides for a statement of the care plan to be provided to the disabled person or his authorised representative and for representations about the content of the care plan to be made to the responsible medical officer.
It is not clear from the clause as drafted precisely what is meant by a care plan, although I took note of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax and the support given to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson). Presumably, as I understand it, it would be a detailed programme tailor-made to the individual person and designed with particular treatment objectives in mind. However, the production of a plan is only the first step, as all of us realise. As a plan, it means very little. The treatments or activities have to be delivered, the results monitored and the plan updated to take account of the success or failure and the need to set new goals. The whole process is resource-intensive. Even at the level which may be envisaged by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax of producing a statement of the main elements of care which will be provided in the community, it has to be said that people's needs change and are particularly likely to change after discharge from hospital into a new environment. Those were the very points made by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). A detailed plan produced before discharge could be of short-lived validity. It could also introduce inflexibility whereas the authorities responsible for the care of the mentally disordered person after discharge should be sensitive to changes in the person's needs and react accordingly. The machinery envisaged is rather bureaucratic.
The provision that no disabled person shall be discharged from hospital until a care plan has been adopted would conflict with the right of voluntary patients to discharge themselves whenever they like, and with the implementation of a decision of a mental health review tribunal to order an immediate discharge. Therefore, there are technical problems and other difficulties associated with the clause as drafted and suggested by my hon. Friend.
11.15 am
In his comments my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax made it clear that if he could not have new clause 14 he would like new clause 11 rather than the Government's new clause 6. Therefore, I shall deal with new clause 11 which has been proposed by the promoter of the Bill. It follows the basic structure of the


Government's proposed new clause 6. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) for building upon that. It would certainly avoid some of the objectionable features of clause 4, which I have pointed out to the House. In particular, the 28-day minimum period for notification disappears as does the formula for adding up periods of short term care in hospital. New clause 11 would place a duty upon hospital managers, when someone is being discharged from hospital after having received continuous treatment as an inpatient for a continuous period of at least six months, to make arrangements with the relevant local authority for an assessment of the patient's needs. The assessment would have to be made before the date of discharge except in the case of patients who are discharged immediately by a mental health review tribunal, in which case the arrangements would have to be made as soon as is practicable.
There are some difficulties with this clause. I would be less than frank with the House if I did not acknowledge that. It fails to make clear what the extent and the duty would be of hospital managers when a local authority failed to participate in the arrangements for an assessment. What will happen if the local authorities social services department is unco-operative? That is not clear in the present formulation. Clearly, hospital authorities have no power to direct local authorities to participate in the assessment of needs.
Similarly, the clause fails to make clear what responsibility, if any, would fall on a local education authority in respect of persons under 19 years of age as they have no responsibility for welfare enactments within the terms of the Bill. I am advised that, in any event, those under 19 years of age in hospital would have already been the subject of a statement of special education needs as provided for under the new clauses we have just discussed and new clause 12, which we have accepted. In other words, there is a technical problem. By requiring hospital managers to make arrangements for an assessment it would give them a wider responsibility than would be placed on them under the Government's new clause 6. That is the thrust of what the hon. Member for Monklands, West is doing in commending his new clause to the House.
I am very sympathetic and I want to respond positively and constructively to what the hon. Gentleman and both sides of the House have put to me. I believe that there will need to be some further discussion with the local authorities, and especially with the health authorities because there is a new provision for them. Therefore, in the time available it has not been possible to have the proper level of consultation required.
It has been acknowledged that there are resource implications for this. I have noted the, I hope not optimistic, comments about the initial savings which are available, if not in the short term, at least in the medium and long term. I suppose, having once been a Treasury Minister, one has a certain training to recognise that jam tomorrow is something which never quite seems to come, whereas costs today are very much always on one's desk. I do not want to be unduly controversial on this matter. I have made the Government's position on resources absolutely clear. If this leads to a reduction of duplication, of course, it is something which all of us welcome because, whatever our arguments across the Floor of the House on the amount of resources that ought to be and can be made available, we will all agree that the resources

which are available should be used effectively and efficiently to help the individuals concerned. Therefore, I certainly do not oppose the adoption of the new clause proposed by the promoter of the Bill. In those circumstances, I would not propose to move new clause 6.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

AMENDMENT OF SECTION 29(2) OF THE CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS ACT 1970

'(1) In section 29 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 in subsection (2) (which extends the Act to Scotland) for paragraph (a) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—

"(a) any references to functions under section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948 shall be construed as references to duties to—

(i) chronically sick or disabled persons;
(ii) persons suffering from mental disorder, (being persons in need) under section 12 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968;".

(2) Subsection (1) above extends to Scotland only.'.—Mr. John MacKay.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John MacKay: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 1 clarifies the position of mentally disordered persons in Scotland in relation to local authority duties under sections 1 and 2 (1) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.
My inquiries into the working of the present chronically sick and disabled persons legislation in Scotland suggested that local authorities did not all regard the duty to provide services in cases of evident need as applying equally to the mentally disordered and those suffering from physical or sensory disability. I thought it appropriate to use the present legislative opportunity to clarify the position. Therefore, in Committee I offered to seek, in the consultations that we had decided to undertake, the views of local authority and other interests on whether the term "disabled persons" in the Scottish application of the present Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act should be defined to include mental disability. That was welcomed by the Bill's sponsors and the Committee in general.
The views expressed on that proposal were generally supportive. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities felt that clarification was desirable for the avoidance of doubt, although, I am happy to record, it felt that any such doubt was likely to be comparatively uncommon. That favourable view was echoed by other bodies, mainly those representing persons suffering from mental disorder.
The provision that I have tabled accordingly takes the form of a replacement for the provision of section 1(1) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Scotland) Act 1972, which originally applied sections 1 and 2 of the 1970 Act to Scotland, but did not make specific reference to persons suffering from mental disorder. To that extent, in future the law in Scotland will be the same as that already applying in England and Wales, where it is clear from th terms of section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948 as amended that local authority duties under that provision


and hence under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Acts extend to persons suffering from mental disorder.
I hope that with that explanation of what the new clause does, it will be acceptable to the House and the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), who I am sure is as keen as I am that the provisions should be clearly understood in Scotland by the local authorities as applying to people with mental disorders.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I should make it clear that my position has not changed at all on this matter. I recognise that the new clause is a technical correction. I am sure that the Minister will accept that description. I would not wish to oppose it. For the convenience of the House, I suggest that we accept the hon. Gentleman's proposals.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

ASSESSMENT AND RECORDINGS OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS

'—(1) The Education (Scotland) Act 1980 is amended in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(2) In section 4 (duty of education authorities to provide child guidance service)—

(a) for the words "a child guidance service in child guidance clinics" there shall be substituted the words "a regional or island authority psychological service in clinics"; and
(b) in sub-paragraph (c) the words "child guidance" shall be omitted.

(3) In section 61 (examination and assessment of children and young persons)—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) for the words from "process of assessment" to "in his education" there shall be substituted the words "process of observation and assessment (including educational, psychological and medical assessments)";
(ii) in paragraphs (a) and (b) for the words "a medical examination and a psychological examination" there shall be substituted the word "assessment";

(b) in subsection (2)—

(i) for the words "a medical examination" there shall be substituted the word "assessment";
(ii) for the words "that examination" there shall be substituted the words "any medical examination held in connection with the assessment";

(c) in subsection (3)—

(i) in paragraph (a) for the word "examinations" there shall be substituted the word "assessment";
(ii) in paragraph (b) for the words "the examinations" there shall be substituted the words "any examinations held in connection with the assessment";
(iii) in paragraph (c) for the words "the medical examination" there shall be substituted the words "any medical examination held in connection with the assessment";

(d) in subsection (6) after the words "process of there shall be inserted the words "observation and";
(e) in subsection (7) in paragraph (a) after the words "process of there shall be inserted the words "observation and".

(4) In section 62 (recording of children and young persons)—

(a) in subsection (1) in paragraphs (a) and (b) after the words "process of there shall be inserted the words "observation and";

(b) in subsection (2) in paragraph (c) at the end there shall be added the words "unless the parent of the child or of the young person or, as the case may be, the young person has requested the education authority not to appoint such a person".

(5) In section 63 (appeals against decisions about recorded children or young persons) in subsection (1) after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted—
(aa) a decision of an education authority not to record the child or, following a review under section 65A of this Act, not to continue to record him;".

(6) In section 64 (provisions supplementary to section 63) in subsection (1) in paragraph (a) after the words "(1)(a)" there shall be inserted ",(aa)".

(7) The foregoing provisions of this section extend to Scotland only. '.—[Mr. John MacKay.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4

INTERPRETATION

'In this Act—

"the 1948 Act" means the National Assistance Act 1948;
"the 1968 Act" means the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968;
"the 1970 Act" means the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970;
"the 1977 Act" means the National Health Service Act 1977;
"the 1978 Act" means the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978;
"the 1983 Act" means the Mental Health Act 1983;
"the 1984 Act" means the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984;
"authorised representative" has the meaning given by section (Authorised representatives of disabled persons) (5) below;

"disabled person"—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, means a person to whom section 29 of the 1948 Act applies; and
(b) in relation to Scotland, means—

(i) a chronically sick or disabled person, or
(ii) a person suffering from mental disorder,

(being a person in need) to whom section 12 of the 1968 Act applies;

"local authority" (except in section (Authorised representatives of disabled persons) (9))—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, means a council which is a local authority for the purposes of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 or, so long as an order under section 12 of that Act is in force, the Council of the Isles of Scilly; and
(b) in relation to Scotland, means a regional or islands council on whom functions are imposed by sections 1 and 2 of the 1968 Act;

"mental disorder"—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, has the meaning given by section 1 of the 1983 Act; and
(b) in relation to Scotland, has the meaning given by section 1(2) of the 1984 Act;

"services" includes facilities;

"the welfare enactments" means Part III of the 1948 Act, section 2 of the 1970 Act and—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, Schedule 8 to the 1977 Act, and
(b) in relation to Scotland, section 27 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947, the 1968 Act and the 1984 Act.'.—[Mr. Hayhoe.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Hayhoe: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 9.

Mr. Hayhoe: New clause 4 is a purely technical clarification. This is the interpretation clause. It has been necessary to make those changes. I hope that there will be no difficulty in the House accepting new clause 4.
Amendment No. 9 deletes clause 9. Again, that is a purely technical deletion, as part of the intentions for applying part I of the Bill to Scotland by way of the appropriate references to Scotland in each clause as necessary. In Committee, an undertaking was given that the substantive provisions of the Bill as finally amended

New Clause 5

REPORTS TO PARLIAMENT


'(1) The Secretary of State shall annually lay before Parliament a report containing the following information namely—


(a) such information as the Secretary of State considers appropriate with respect to the development of health and social services in the community for persons suffering from mental illness or mental handicap who are not resident in hospitals;


(b) information with respect to—


(i) the number of persons receiving treatment for mental illness as in-patients in health service hospitals, and


(ii) the number of persons receiving treatment for mental handicap as in-patients in such hospitals,


in each case analysed by reference to age and length of stay; and


(c) such other information (if any) as the Secretary of State considers appropriate to be included in the report.


(2) In this section—


"health service hospital"—


(a) in relation to England and Wales, has the same meaning as in the 1977 Act except that it does not include a special hospital within the meaning of that Act, and


(b) in relation to Scotland, has the same meaning as in the 1978 Act, except that it does not include a State hospital within the meaning of the 1984 Act;


"hospital" has the meaning given by section (Persons discharged from hospital)


(4)) above; and


"mental handicap" has, in relation to England and Wales, the same meaning as in Group D in Schedule 1 to the Juries Act 1974.'.—[Mr. Hayhoe.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Hayhoe: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following:
Amendment (a), in line 11, after 'stay', insert 'and diagnostic classes'.
Amendment (b), in line 11, leave out 'and' and insert—
'(bb) information with respect to the numbers of persons under treatment for mental illness or disorder and mental handicap discharged from hospital and the arrangements for the care of those persons outside hospital in each case analysed by reference to age, length of stay and diagnostic classes; and'.
Amendment No. 12.

Mr. Hayhoe: Clause 12 as drafted would require the Secretary of State to identify and report to Parliament annually on the number and ages of children resident in mental handicap hospitals for a period totalling at least six months in the preceding year; on similar details for adults in mental handicap or psychiatric hospitals; and on the numbers in each category who have moved out of each hospital since the previous report and the provision that has been made for them in the community.
The Government have proposed the change not because they had any objection to the intentions behind clause 12, but, having looked at the matter carefully, they found that it is not possible to give information about the numbers of

would be fully applied to Scotland. That has been done in so far as one has been able to do so, but some further changes will probably be necessary in the other place, as has been said by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary under-Secretary of State for Scotland, as a result of the new clauses that we are adopting today. Otherwise, we have sought to achieve what was undertaken in Committee. Action will be needed in another place. Clause 9 as it stands is redundant. I hope that, at the appropriate time, the House will agree to its deletion.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

individual patients dischared or provision made in the community specifically for them. Information could be provided in a more relevant and helpful form to that required in clause 12 because as clause 12 stands information would include those who had been in-patients for frequent short-stay periods, which would mask the number of long-stay patients.

Therefore, new clause 5 would require the Secretary of State to make an annual report to Parliament giving information on the development of health and social services in the community for mentally ill and mentally handicapped people, as he considers appropriate; a breakdown of the numbers, by age and length of stay, of patients in National Health Service, mental handicap and mental illness hospitals; and such other information, if any, as he considers appropriate. It would enable the commitment that I gave in Committee to provide information on small units with four beds or under to be met. With the change in the arrangements for dealing with mental handicap and mental illness, it is proper that that should be included.

Therefore, I commend new clause 5 to the House and hope that, at the appropriate time, hon. Members will agree to the deletion of clause 12.

Mr. Galley: My amendment (b) to new clause 5 reinserts in the Bill provisions relating to information on discharge from hospital. I note carefully what my right hon. Friend the Minister said about the difficulties of


obtaining that information, and that that is why the Government have sought to amend the Bill. However, I believe that it is extraordinarily important that, if we are to have meaningful information in the report to Parliament, we know what happens to people on discharge.
The new clause specifies information about the number of people in hospital, but says nothing about the arrangements for people being discharged. If we know how many are in hospital and how many are being treated, I cannot see the difficulty in providing at least some information on what happens to people on discharge. We need to know about the numbers discharged and the arrangements made for them, otherwise how are we to monitor the progress, success and problems of our community care policies?
Although amendment (b) does not specify this too closely—that is deliberately so, because I do not wish to tie down the Secretary of State too much—I hope that reports giving the numbers of those discharged, and how many of them may have moved back to their families or into hostel type accommodation or unstaffed homes with some community support will be published. That would allow us to build up a data bank to determine the success of the policy and also of good practice in ensuring that community care ideas come to fruition.

Mr. Greg Knight: Does my hon. Friend intend that the information given will relate to those persons discharged from hospital in the year for which the Minister gives his report, or will it be given about those discharged from hospital but who are still receiving treatment?

Mr. Galley: That would be consistent with the new clause. My interpretation of my amendment is that such information would be on the same lines as other statistics produced annually in the NHS in that it would be about the numbers discharged during the course of the 12 months to which the NHS annual report refers, and about what has happened to those people. We need some information about trends of people discharged, their community locations and treatment. If we are to plan sensible services, that is as important, if not more important, as how many people are in hospital on an in-patient basis.
Amendments (a) and (b) refer not only to age and length of stay but to diagnostic classes. It is important that we know how many people are in hospital or being discharged under certain diagnostic headings. We need to know how many of them have long-term serious mental illness, and how many have short-term, rather less serious mental illness. That is the key to planning sensibly the required services.
There should not be any great difficulty of acquiring such information. Figures on admissions to hospital by diagnostic classes are already available in the annual NHS statistics, and it would be fairly easy for a requirement for such information to be included in the new clause. One can understand the difficulties to which my hon. Friend the Minister refers. I hope that he understands the worry of many in the House and elsewhere about not having full, accurate, up-to-date and sensible data. One cannot plan appropriate services for those discharged without such

information, and I hope that my hon. Friend will indertake to give rather more sympathetic consideration to these small measures.

Mr. Thurnham: My hon. Friend the Minister said that the report would cover the ages and numbers of children. Will it also relate to the local authority which will be responsible for the child on discharge, because sometimes there can be a great deal of confusion? A child may be in hospital for many years, the parents may have moved from the place where the child was when it first came into care, and there may be no contact with any local authorities. One of the reasons why so many children are still in hospital is that no local authority accepts responsibility for them. I have not tabled an amendment, but if my hon. Friend the Minister could make this clear it would be helpful.

Mr. Peter Lilley: I welcome the new clause, especially the requirements for information to be published on the development of health and social services in the community for persons suffering from mental illness or mental handicaps, and for figures of how many people need such provision. I support the publication of such information, because the move towards such provision in the community is being threatened by an unholy alliance that is developing between three groups. One is prejudiced against the mentally ill and mentally handicapped and does not want to see them moved into the community. The second group is seeking to denigrate the Government's achievements in the NHS, and the third group has a vested interest in retaining existing forms of provision—large, old-fashioned institutions.
The unholy alliance that has built up beween these three groups could be overcome if we published more information about what is being done and what needs to be done. I do not deny that many people are genuinely concerned that not enough is being done to make adequate provision in the community, and they too will benefit if more information is published.

Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend accept the logic of his position and his points—that the provision of such information in the suggested form may lead to yet further demands for policy developments that could have important resource implications?

Mr. Galley: That is true, but, if new policies are developed on a basis of fact rather than ignorance, we should not stand in their way, and I would welcome such a development.
In Victorian times, the policy towards the mentally ill and handicapped was to get rid of them and put them in large institutions a long way from the centres of population because they were embarrassing and frightening. There are several large institutions around my constituency that were originally far from areas of habitation for precisely that reason.
Nowadays, people are just as prejudiced, but the prejudice takes a more hypocritical and sophisticated form. Frequently, this expresses itself not in terms of, "Let us not have a mentally ill or mentally handicapped person living next door" but, "Is there really adequate provision in the community for these people, should we leave them in institutions, and should we not delay any attempts to close such large institutions and replace them by smaller-scale community care?"

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am trying to be flexible and tolerant, but the hon. Gentleman seems to be getting well away from the new clause that the House is debating.

Mr. Lilley: The new clause emphasises the duty of the Secretary of State to publish information on these matters. The problem that I have outlined, which I see in my constituency, would be eased if such information were published. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not just limit himself to publishing information about national statistics, as the clause implies, but that each area health authority will publish similar information to that asked for in the clause.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) in his amendment (b), which would make clear to the general public the number and type of people in such institutions who will need community care. It would be beneficial if that were spelt out more clearly in the clause. I hope that my hon. Friend's amendment will be accepted.
Widespread ignorance can be overcome only by telling the truth, publishing the facts and letting people know what provision is already being made and how many people need such provision in future. I welcome the new clause and hope that it will be incorporated in the Bill.

Mr. Hayhoe: I shall reply to some of the points raised in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) asked what additional information would be incorporated in the reports that would be required as a result of new clause 5. I noted his comments about what would be appropriate, but I hope that he will accept that I cannot give a definitive answer today. Instead of giving a speculative answer, I should be happy to write to him as the matter requires further consideration by the Department in order to see what is appropriate.
Amendment (a) provides that information on the numbers of people receiving treatment for mental illness and mental handicap, as set out in new clause 5(1)(b), would have to be analysed by a diagnostic class as well as by age and length of stay. Amendment (b) requires follow-up information to be obtained on persons discharged from hospital who have received treatment for mental illness, disorder or mental handicap, and for it to be obtained on the arrangements that have been made for their further care. The information published is to be analysed by reference to age, length of stay and diagnostic class.
Information in respect of both of those amendments is not collected. As has been said, it exists in certain places, but the coverage is patchy. The Korner recommendations—the information technology recommendations—are being implemented, but once they have been fully implemented by April 1987 it may well be possible to provide more information on the number of in-patients who have been in hospital for more than 12 months and

New Clause 8


AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVES OF DISABLED PERSONS


'(1) A local authority shall permit the authorised representative of a disabled person, if so requested by the disabled person—


(a) to act as the representative of the disabled person in connection with the provision by the authority of any services for him in the exercise of any of their functions under the welfare enactments, or


(b) to accompany the disabled person (otherwise than as his representative) to any meeting or interview held by or on behalf of the authority in connection with the provision by them of any such services.

who are receiving treatment for mental disorder. That information is likely to become available during the summer of 1988.

However, there is no proposal to collect information in the form required in amendment (b), as it would need to be collected from both the Health Service an the local authority's social services department.

Thus, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) will not press his amendments today, as the information is not available. If it was collected, there would be a significant resource implication for the Department and for the health and local authorities.

Mr. Galley: How difficult and costly would it be to obtain the information? After all, it is important for sensible planning. If the spirit of my new clause 14 which would put the onus on the responsible medical officer was accepted, there would be one collating point, and one would not need two or three different sources.

Mr. Hayhoe: I understand that the Korner information initiative will make it easier to obtain the sort of information that my hon. Friend has in mind through the health authorities. However, the problem of cross-batching with the local authorities would remain. Nevertheless, I give my hon. Friend the assurance that we will try to include in the report to Parliament as much information as possible about long-stay patients receiving treatment for mental disorders, as analysed by diagnostic class. Indeed, I gladly give that assurance.
Once the Korner information becomes available, everything will be put into perspective. If there was a legislative requirement to collect that information and to report to Parliament, as the amendments demand, I would have to take advice on the overall cost. However, I have given the assurance that we shall try to provide such information. The Government's record on providing such information and statistics for the Health Service is pretty good. Indeed, the number of statistics on my desk is very considerable, and the answers that I have given to the Opposition spokesman on health fill up pages of Hansard. I make no complaint about that, as it is wholly proper that such information should be provided. But it shows that I am a willing provider of such information, and so I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax will not press his amendments. We shall do the best we can with regard to reports along the lines that he has implied would be of significance to him and his colleagues.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) wish to move his amendments formally?

Mr. Galley: In view of the helpful assurances given by my right hon. Friend the Minister, and my wish not to impede progress, I shall not press them.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

(2) For the purpose of assisting the authorised representative of a disabled person to do any of the things mentioned in subsection (1)(a) and (b) a local authority shall, if so requested by the disabled person—


(a) supply to the authorised representative any information, and


(b) make available for his inspection any documents,


that the disabled person would be entitled to require the authority to supply to him or (as the case may be) to make available for his inspection.


(3) A local authority shall not be required by virtue of subsection (1) or (2)—


(a) to permit an authorised representative to be present at any meeting or interview or part of a meeting or interview, or


(b) to supply any information to an authorised representative or to make any documents available for the inspection of an authorised representative;


if the authority are satisfied that to do so would be likely to be harmful to the interests of the disabled person by or on whose behalf the representative has been appointed; and in determining that matter the authority shall have regard to any wishes expressed by the disabled person.


(4) Where a disabled person is residing—


(a) in accommodation provided by a local authority under Part III of the 1948 Act or Schedule 8 to the 1977 Act or, in Scotland, under Part IV of the 1968 Act or section 7 of the 1984 Act, or


(b) in accommodation provided by a viluntary organisation in accordance with arrangements made by a local authority under section 26 of the 1948 Act or, in Scotland, provided by a voluntary organisation or other persons in accordance with arrangements made by a local authority under section 59(2)(c) of the 1968 Act, or


(c) in a residential care home within the meaning of Part I of the Registered Homes Act 1984 or, in Scotland, in an establishment (other than accommodation falling within paragraph (b) above) registered under section 61 of the 1968 Act, or


(d) at any place specified by a person having the guardianship of the disabled person under Part II of the 1983 Act or Part V of the 1984 Act,


the disabled person's authorised representative may at any reasonable time visit him there and interview him in private.


(5) In this Act "authorised representative", in relation to a disabled person, means a person for the time being appointed by or on behalf of that disabled person (in accordance with regulations made under subsection (6)) to act as his authorised representative for the purposes of this Act.


(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide—


(a) for the manner in which the appointment of a person as an authorised representative is to be made or terminated;


(b) for any such appointment, and any termination of such an appointment, to be notified to the relevant local authority as defined in the regulations;


and any such regulations may provide for the parent or guardian of a disabled peron under the age of 16 to appoint himself or some other person as the authorised representative of the disabled person, and to terminate any such appointment (but shall not permit a person under that age himself to appoint a person as his authorised representative).


(7) Any such regulations may also make special provision for cases where ther disabled person is unable to appoint, or to terminate the appointment of, an authorised representative by reason of anymental or physical incapacity; and subsection (1) and (2) shall have effect in relation to a person whose authorised representative is appointed by virtue of any such provision as if the words "if so requested by the disabled person" were omitted.


(8) It is hereby declared that any person exercising under Part II of the 1983 Act or Part V of the 1984 Act—


(a) the functions of the nearest relative of a disabled person, or


(b) the functions of the guardian of a disabled person received into guardianship under that Part of that Act,


may, if appointed as such in accordance with this section, also act as that person's authorised representative.


(9) The Secretary of State may, after consulting such bodies representing health authorities or local authorities as appear to him to be appropriate, provide by order for any of the preceding provisions of this section to have effect (with such modifications as may be prescribed by the order) in relation to—


(a) the provision of services by health authorities in the exercise of such of their functions under the 1977 Act or the 1978 Act as may be prescribed by the order, or


(b) the provision of services by local authorities in the exercise of such of their functions as may be so prescribed.


(10) In subsection (9)—


"health authority"—


(a) in relation to England and Wales, has the meaning given by section 128(1) of the 1977 Act, and


(b) in relation to Scotland, means a Health Board within the meaning of the 1978 Act; and


"local authority"—


(a) in relation to England and Wales, has the meaning given by section 270(1) of the Local Government Act 1972; and


(b) in relation to Scotland, means a regional, islands or district council.'.—[Mr. Hayhoe.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Hayhoe: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment (a) to new clause 8, line 44, at end insert—
'(5A) The person appointed by or on behalf of a disabled person as an authorised representative shall be—

(a) the person exercising the functions set out in subsection (8) below; or
(b) if that is not applicable or where that is not, in the relevant circumstances, reasonable, another person related by blood or marriage to that disabled person; or
(c) where in the relevant circumstances, it would be unreasonable to appoint a person as defined in paragraphs (a) and (b) above, another suitable person who otherwise falls within the terms of this section.'.—[Mr. Roy Galley.]

Amendments Nos. 1, 16 and 17.

Mr. Hayhoe: The new clause involves the representation of disabled people and is obviously an important and significant provision. Clause 1 of the original Bill would enable a disabled person to appoint a representative to attend on his behalf, or accompany him to any meetings of a local authority or health authority at which the provision of services for the disabled person was to be discussed and to provide him with any necessary assistance in connection with the provision of those services or otherwise.
The Government fully recognise that it would be a valuable step forward to provide a right of representation for disabled people. But we are concerned about the practical difficulties of applying the representation provisions to services provided by health authorities as well as social services departments. I certainly recognise the strength of support for such an extension, which emerged from the consultation exercise. Accordingly, the Government are prepared to consider the matter further, in consultation with the health authorities. In Committee, I explained some of the problems that could arise, and we need to discuss further to see how they could be overcome. Consequently, I shall in a moment explain how we propose to deal with the issue.

Mr. Ashley: Before going into the practical difficulties, will the Minister say what practical difficulties arise for the health authorities that do not arise in the area in which he is prepared to accept representation?

Mr. Hayhoe: It might be better for the right hon. Gentleman to wait until I say how I propose to deal with the matter. I hope that he will find that my remarks are not unacceptable to him. As it stands, the clause is of concern to the Government because there are no lower age limits. In the Government's view, it would be undesirable for children under 16 to appoint representatives. However, their parents may find it helpful to do so. Moreover, as it stands, the clause does not make it clear whether a representative would hav only the same rights to attend meetings, or would have access to information that the disabled person would have. There is no provision for a statutory authority to bar a representative from attending a meeting, or from having access to information, if very sensitive personal matters are at issue.
The effect of the Government's amendment, which is to replace clause 1 of the Bill with new clause 8, would

be to place a duty on a local authority to allow an authorised representative to act on behalf of a disabled person or accompany him or her to meetings to discuss the provision of social services and to make available to the representative information that the disabled person is entitled to receive. This duty would apply only if the disabled person requested that it should. The local authority could bar the representative from being involved on a particular occasion if the authority thought it would be harmful to the disabled person's interest, although in deciding on that it would have to have regard to any wishes expressed by the disabled person.

Mr. Wigley: Can the Minister clarify what he said about disabled persons giving their consent? How can we solve the problem that a disabled person who is so severely handicapped that he cannot meaningfully consent should not miss out on representation?

Mr. Hayhoe: The hon. Gentleman is pre-empting what I will shortly say. The proposed new clause would also empower the Secretary of State to provide by regulation for appointing representatives by parents appointing themselves or others as representatives for children under 16 and for representatives to be appointed—arid I now come to the point the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) was raising—for those who by reason of mental disorder are themselves unable to appoint representatives. The details of this provision need further consideration.
The hon. Gentleman will remember that we discussed this matter in Committee and, of all the various possibilities, none commanded widespread support. There were difficulties with the various proposals made. Thus, I propose that we go into further consultation on that matter in the hope that additional amendments might, if they were required to deal with the matter, be introduced in another place. I do not believe that on this point there is any difference in principle between me and the hon. Gentleman. We both recognise this as a problem and want to find a solution that is fair and reasonable to all concerned and that works in practice.

Mr. Forth: Could my right hon. Friend also include in such consultation the consideration of any difficulty that might arise as a result of someone with a hearing impairment, who is deaf, and who might need help in interpretation in dealing with the authorities, having access to someone with those skills? Will he consider building into the provisions that will be examined some way of providing assistance to people with the kind of problem to which I have referred?

Mr. Hayhoe: In the context of the Bill, we have certainly been considering the question of interpretation as relevant to dealing with problems of communication arising from disability, not the problems of interpretation arising from different languages in the case of people coming from abroad, and so on. I accept that, in considering these matters, we must take into account the case raised.
The new clause I propose would also provide that representatives should have access at all reasonable times to disabled people whom they represent. The proposal would give the Secretary of State the power to extend, by order, the scope of the representation provisions to the provision of health services and other local authority


services. That would mean that consultation could take place. We could see whether we could overcome these difficulties. How will health authorities, in this context, distinguish a disabled person who has an entitlement to a representative from another patient who might well be in the bed alongside, or certainly in the same ward, and who would not have that right? There could be difficulties in that respect.
Would representatives of the disabled person have the right in hospital to be present at clinical examinations? There could be problems there. It will also be recalled that in Committee, when this matter was discussed, reference was made to ethical problems of the medical profession about confidentiality. That matter would need to be taken into account. There is a raft of problems involved, and I hope that in further consultation we can solve them. As I have indicated, the Government have accepted the strength of view expressed during the consultation process in favour of extending the right of representation to health authorities as well as to local authorities.
In the context of this clause I will say something about the implications for resources. The provisions for the appointment of representatives will, as is widely acknowledged, have resource implications. Further, there are the practical difficulties of the health authorities and the need to provide arrangements for the appointment of representatives for those disabled people who are unable to appoint someone themselves—the point I have just been discussing with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caernarfon. Both of these factors mean that the Government are not able to indicate at this stage when we believe the clause can begin to operate. It would depend on how we are able to overcome the practical difficulties of appointing representatives and on when resources can be made available. I have already made that point in conversation with the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), but it should be made in the House.

Mr. Clarke: I am slightly concerned about the time factor in this debate. I hope that on Third Reading we shall have the opportunity to deal with the important matter about which the Minister has been speaking.

Mr. Hayhoe: Subject to the decision of the Chair, we can always deal with the point on Third reading. I am sure that for anything else to happen would be out of context with the harmonious attitudes that have pervaded the whole of the discussions on the matter today. I commend new clause 8 and hope that the House will, at the appropriate time, agree to delete clause 1.

Mr. Ashley: It is wrong to exclude health services from representation because, if it is possible to have representation of social services, the same kind of representation should be given in health services. It is significant that major decisions are made for disabled people in health services. If those decisions are thus made, there is little point in giving representation in social services after the damage has been done. I warmly welcome the Minister's assurances that he will enter into consultation; that is a big step forward. I look forward to the consultations and to the fact that the cart-before-the-horse situation I have just mentioned will be considered.

Mr. Galley: I wish to make a few remarks about my amendment (a) to new clause 8. The essence of the

amendment is that, wherever possible, there should be a presumption that a disabled person's authorized representative should be a relative by blood or marriage. The drafting of the amendment has caused me some anxiety, but I have had the advantage of the most expert advice available, so I hope that it achieves my objective.
The amendment stems from a concern I expressed on Second Reading that an open-endedness about authorised representatives may allow some disabled people to be manipulated. That concern is shared by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. We are genuinely worried about the possibility of conflicts of view and interest between the relatives of a disabled person and an authorised repesentative from outside the family. It is important that families are fully involved in the caring process of disabled people.

Mr. Greg Knight: Does my hon. Friend agree that his point cuts both ways, and that there may be a conflict between a disabled person and members of his family?

12 noon

Mr. Galley: My hon. Friend is right, and I shall deal with that point in a moment.
As the new clause stands, relatives and families are deliberately excluded from the representational arrangements and the discussions about care, and I am worried about that. It is presumed that, generally, relatives will be caring and sympathetic, and, indeed, that is normally the case. However, if the problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) referred arises, the amendment would introduce a test of reasonableness, relating to the appointment of someone other than the relative by blood or marriage. That test of reasonableness would apply if it were considered that a relative was not sympathetic to a disabled person and would not act in his best interests.

Mr. Forth: Will my hon. Friend clarify the point that I made earlier? If a particular expertise were required, such as lip reading or sign language for the deaf, would the test of reasonableness apply? In other words, if a member of the family could not provide the necessary service, could another representative be appointed to cover that requirement under his amendment?

Mr. Galley: My interpretation of the amendment is that that would be possible. In all these circumstances one hopes that there will be a co-operative element, and that the representative and others with expertise will work together. However, one needs to take particular care in circumstances where there may be disagreements about how care should be delivered.
There is some support for that view in the submission made by the ACC. It states that disabled people are vulnerable, and that it is
not unknown for individuals and organisations to represent such people in an exploitative manner which has little to do with the needs of the disabled as an individual.
I do not wish to over-emphasise that point, but it can occur in certain circumstances. People and organisations who seek to be representatives may have some philosophical or ulterior motive. In most instances where acknowledged experts and established, respected voluntary bodies act as representatives, there will be no difficulty. However, there is a danger of fringe organisations making advocacy almost into a business, without necessarily having the


interests of the disabled person at heart. The best way out of the problem is to presume that a relative will do the job, unless it is unreasonable or inappropriate.
In general terms the concept of advocacy is in its infancy. A number of pilot projects are under way, but they have not yet been evaluated. Before we fully implement the provisions on representation we should ensure that a careful evaluation of those advocacy schemes takes place. That is the burden of my case.
There may be difficulties with the amendment as it is drafted. My right hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) may not wish to accept it today, but I hope that my points will receive sympathetic consideration, so that when the regulations relating to the authorisation of representatives are eventually drawn up, the needs, duties and responsibilities of families will be fully taken into account. On that basis, I do not wish to press my amendment to a vote. I know that the hon. Gentleman is not entirely happy with it, and there may be some practical difficulties for my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Alfred Morris: As the Minister may have heard, our estimate is that new clause 8 gives 80 per cent. of clause 1 of the Bill as now drafted. The Minister is an engineer and thus knows more than most about mathematics. I think that 80 per cent. is right, and we are prepared to take four-fifths of the loaf that we were seeking. So we accept the new clause.
This part of the Bill puts representation into rehabilitation. That is extremely important to disabled people and their families. Successful rehabilitation can be defined as giving the disabled person the right help, in the right place and at the right time. To allow representation where required is to make that objective more attainable. That is why we want to see adequate representation for disabled people wherever it is called for.
We have some important reservations about the amendment of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley). I know he understands them and we are grateful to him for agreeing not to press it at this stage. There will no doubt be detailed consideration of this matter in the other place. It is our view, and he no doubt agrees with us, that the other place will have a role in considering anew this important part of the Bill.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I too welcome the fact that the Government have improved the proposals in the basic recommendations of the earlier consultation document. I particularly welcome the right of representation to all those aged 16-plus and to the parents of disabled children. I wish to put on record some points consistent with those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris).
The new clause is comprehensive, but a few matters will need to be considered carefully in another place, for example the restrictions in subsection (3) on the rights of representatives, and subsection (4) on access to people in hospital in advance of the implementation of subsection (9), for example to plan a discharge. The clause was introduced after a three-week consultation period. The Government now have far longer to consult health authorities before the Bill leaves the other place. Therefore, I hope and expect that the Minister will seek to complete his consultations before then and will introduce substantive amendments in the other place on Report or Third Reading.
In the first consultation exercise the principal representation received support from 21 of the 26 health bodies which responded by the deadline, including the National Association of Health Authorities, many of the RHAs and the Royal College of Nursing. It also received almost universal support from everyone else. I feel confident that that will be borne in mind in the other place, and that the Minister will consider these points carefully.

Mr. Greg Knight: It has not gone unnoticed by Conservative Members that the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) has developed a worried expression. We can see that he is keeping one eye on the clock. I assure him that I support the new clause and the Bill and that I do not wish in any way to impede its passage. I hope that all my colleagues support the principle of the clause—the principle of an authorised representative having the right to present the case of a disabled person. There is a good reason for doing so, because often the presentation of a case is crucial to its outcome. A tribunal or an officer who must examine the circumstances may have his heart in the right place and wish to make the right decisions, but if the facts are not presented to him cogently and intelligibly, the decision may be incorrect and an injustice may result. We should all welcome the principle of allowing an authorised representative, a claimant's friend, to act as advocate.
I agree with the point made by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider in another place extending the provision to the Health Service. I am aware of the potential difficulties that that would create, but it is stretching worries too far to include clinical examinations in that connection. We are seeking to give a right to appoint an advocate to a disabled person. I cannot think of any reason why the advocate would need to be present at a clinical examination.
The Lord Chancellor has said that two heads are better than one, even if they are sheep's heads. Although he made that point in relation to advice given in court cases, the principle applies here. Right may often be on the disabled person's side, but he may not have the ability to present the case properly.
I have several questions which I hope that the Minister will answer before we move to the next new clause. I share the anxiety of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) in connection with subsection (1) and a person who does not have the ability to make the decision that he wishes to be represented. The House must be assured that that person will not thereby be denied the right to have an advocate to speak on his behalf. Subsection (2)(a) and (b) provide that it shall be the duty of a local authority, "To supply to the authorised representative any information, and … make available for his inspection any documents,". At whose expense will that be done? I hope that a local authority will not say, "There is a file that your advocate can see, but we shall require a photocopying charge or a production fee." I hope that in the spirit of this clause, local authorities will not seek to charge for providing such information.
Perhaps I am being overly suspicious, but in subsection (3) I am anxious about the circumstances in which the local authority will decide that it is harmful to the interests of the disabled person for him to be represented. That is like the prosecution telling the defence how to prepare its case.


May I be given an example of when the Minister envisages a local authority saying, "It would not be in your interests to be represented by this person"?
I am also concerned about subsection (6). My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) said that he was worried about an advocacy organisation acting without the interests of the disabled person at heart, whereas relatives would have the interests of the disabled person at heart. I do not agree with that argument. It is difficult to imagine a person who is there to act as advocate for the disabled person doing anything other than act in that person's interests, especially if he has no personal involvement in the issue. He is there to do a job and to help the disabled person. I can conceive of many instances in which the relative of a disabled person may have a family axe to grind. There may have been a dispute between brothers and sisters and, therefore, they might not act in the interests of the disabled person. I hope that the House will not accept the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax. With those reservations, I welcome the new clause.

Mr. Yeo: I welcome the tone of the Minister's remarks when he introduced the new clause. I listened carefully to his comments outlining some of the problems that he believes could arise from the appointment of representatives in relation to the services provided by health authorities. I appreciate the potential difficulties, but they may be overcome. It is of the utmost importance that they should be overcome because few groups of disabled people are more in need of representatives than the residents of long-stay mental handicap hospitals. Many hon. Members who have experience in this area will know of cases where the lives of individuals have been transformed by the appointment of representatives. I urge my right hon. Friend to make every effort in the coming weeks to overcome the difficulties that he outlined so that that group can also benefit from the appointment of representatives.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I risk incurring your wrath, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by intervening briefly in the debate. Three matters should be emphasised more than they have been. The first is the need of the mentally disabled for representation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) so ably said, the residents of long-stay mental handicap hospitals are those least able to appoint representatives to help them and those least able to help themselves without representation. Therefore, it is imperative, to get the proper results from the Bill, that a solution is found to the problem of providing them with representation.
The second matter arises from subsection (3). I do not believe that the formula in the Bill is adequate or appropriate. The local authority cannot be let off the hook so easily as it is by the excuse that, in any circumstances, on its judgment alone, it can withdraw documents or information from a representative because it believes that it is not in the interests of the disabled person for it to be provided. All hon. Members will have experience of occasions on which local government managers, harassed and overworked as they are, find it extremely convenient not to give information or co-operate fully with the people

who will be affected by their decisions. I am confident that my fears will be justified when I say that if the clause goes ahead as drafted, there will be many instances of authorised representatives not being provided with essential information to enable them properly to carry out their functions.
It is also imperative that the provisions of the new clause are extended to the health authorities. Often, the mentally handicapped desperately need representation in their dealings with health authorities. On Second Reading, I told the House of my experience in my previous constituency. A mental handicap hospital was to be closed and the people living there were to be moved to a much larger and completely unsuitable home in the middle of a large city. Medical evidence showed that at least two of the patients would die if such a move was made. Had it not been for a local councillor and the then Minister of State, those people would have been moved and would have died. I was an intermediary. We saved those people only because of the personal involvement of a local councillor. Although she was not officially appointed as their representative, she took upon herself the duties of such a representative. There must be many other instances where people have not been so fortunate in being allocated care and where the machinery of bureaucracy has used them as pawns, moving them from place to place without adequately considering their needs. It is important for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health to use his powers under subsection (9) to bring the health authorities within the ambit of the Bill.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we have a long way to go before we conclude consideration of the Bill.

Mr. Thurnham: I am a little disappointed that we have not been able to pin down details of the provision for the severely mentally handicapped. It is still not clear who should represent them. I again draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health to the case of children so distanced from their parents that the family cannot easily be considered to act as representatives for them.
I was interested in the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) about developments in pilot advocacy schemes. If charitable organisations can take this action, that would be one of the most obvious possibilities. I hope that the Government will pay full attention to this matter so that the details can be sorted out and amendments introduced in the other place at an early stage.

Mr. Hayhoe: The proposed amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) would set out a hierarchy of people through which one would have to work tier by tier to establish the disabled person's choice. That would impose an unnecessary prescription.
These matters must be looked at in the context of regulations. In considering the regulations, I shall take account of the points of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax who was concerned that the family should not be damaged by these arrangements. I hope that we all agree with that principle.
I welcome the general acceptance of this important major step in giving a new right of representation. I am


glad that the changes have been generally accepted. My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) recognised the difficulties with respect to extending the right of representation to health authorities. Because I believe that those difficulties can be overcome. I have responded to the consultation by including the new power in the new clause. Discussions with the various concerned interests are needed to deal with the problems. The intention is to find a route to follow, and I think that that is in accord with the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) asked when it would be inappropriate to allow a representative to be involved without the disabled person's agreement. There may be occasions in problems of a sexual or related matter when the family's relationship could be damaged if a close relative—perhaps a husband or wife—were included as a representative. Those difficulties arise, but I do not think that I need say more. We are concerned with the interests of disabled individuals.
It has been suggested that subsection (3) may be used by local authorities to get out of their responsibilities because it is not convenient for them to act in a particular way. I am advised that the drafting of that subsection means that local authorities would have to be convinced that something was harmful to the interests of the individual concerned before the powers could be used.
I hope that I have said enough to show that the new clause deserves the support of the House. If necessary, the detailed points can be considered in the other place, although I think that many would be more appropriately dealt with in the regulations which are a consequence of this measure.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 9

ASSESSMENT BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES OF NEEDS OF DISABLED PERSONS

'(1) On any occasion when it falls to a local authority to decide whether the needs of a disabled person call for the provision by the authority (in accordance with any of the welfare enactments) of any statutory services for that person, the authority shall afford an opportunity to the disabled person or his authorised representative to make, within such reasonable period as the authority may allow for the purpose, representations to an officer of the authority as to any needs of the disabled person calling for the provision by the authority (in accordance with any of those enactments) of any statutory services for him.

(2) Where any such representations have been made to a local authority in accordance with subsection (1), and the authority have determined which statutory services (if any) should in their opinion be provided by them for the disabled person having regard to those representations, the authority shall, if so requested by the disabled person or his authorised representative, supply the person making the request with a written statement—

(a) specifying the statutory services (if any) that they propose to provide; and
(b) giving an explanation of their proposal.

(3) Where the local authority do not propose to provide any statutory services to meet a particular need identified in any representations under subsection (1), any statement supplied under subsection (2) must—

(a) state that fact together with the reasons why the authority do not propose to provide any such services, and
(b) inform the disabled person or his authorised representative of the right to make further representations under subsection (4).

(4) If the disabled person or his authorised representative is dissatisfied with any matter stated by the local authority in pursuance of subsection (3)(a), that person may, within such reasonable period as the authority may allow for the purpose, make further representations to an officer of the authority with respect to the particular need in question.

(5) Where any such representations have been made to the authority in accordance with subsection (4), the authority shall—

(a) reconsider, in the light of those representations, the question whether any statutory services should be provided as mentioned in subsection (3), and
(b) inform the disabled person or his authorised representative in writing of their decision on that question and their reasons for that decision.

(6) Where the disabled person or his authorised representative is unable to communicate, or (as the case may be) be communicated with, orally or in writing by reason of any mental of physical incapacity, the local authority shall provide such services as, in their opinion, are necessary to ensure that any such incapacity does not—

(a) prevent the authority from discharging their functions under this section in relation to the disabled person, or
(b) prevent the making of representations under this section by or on behalf of that person.

(7) In this section—

"representations" means representations made orally or in writing (or both); and
"statutory services"—


(a) in relation to England and Wales, means services under any arrangements which the local authority are required to make by virtue of any of the welfare enactments, and
(b) in relation to Scotland, means services which a local authority are required to provide themselves or by arrangement with another local authority, or with any voluntary or other body, in connection with the performance of the local authority's functions under the welfare enactments.'—[Mr. Hayhoe.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Hayhoe: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 2, 6 and 7.

Mr. Hayhoe: The provisions in clauses 2, 6 and 7 as drafted extend the responsibilities placed on local authorities to assess the needs of a disabled person for specific social services under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 by requiring them to ensure that all relevant needs are considered, to supply the disabled person or representative with all the information used in making the assessment unless given to the authority in confidence, to allow the disabled person or representative to give their views before decisions are taken, to provide a written record of the assessment and to make appropriate referrals to other authorities, provided the disabled person or representative agrees.
The provisions require local authorities to provide an interpreter at their expense if requested by anyone involved in the assessment process if direct communication with the disabled person is not possible because of disability or inadequate command of English.
Clauses 6 and 7 set out more elaborate procedures to be followed by local authorities when assessing the needs of disabled persons under clauses 3, 4 and 5—children with special educational needs, mentally disabled people discharged from hospital and disabled people looked after by informal carers.
I shall not weary the House with a detailed commentary on clauses 6 and 7, because the intention of the Government's new clause 9 is to replace those clauses.


The Government accept the underlying principle that disabled people should be given the right to a reasoned decision about the social services to which they are entitled and to make representations about them to the local authority.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: As a councillor on a social work committee, I visited mentally retarded patients who were in the care of the committee but were living with a family, sometimes on isolated farms and in isolated communities. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that such people will be offered the same facilities as people in the care of local authorities?

Mr. Hayhoe: I should need to look at the precise implications. Equality of treatment seldom exists between local authorities, or even between different people. However, I shall look at that point.
I was dealing with the provisions of the new clause. I said that the clauses that the Government are seeking to replace contain, in the Government's view, over-rigid and bureucratic constraints upon the way in which local authorities discharge their functions. In some instances, they could delay the provision of services to disabled people. In particular, the Government are concerned that social services departments are required to assess the need for services which they have no duty to provide.
The proposed formula governing access to information would over-simplify a complex issue. Detailed guidance on disclosure of personal social services information has already been given to local authorities. The administrative cost of such a detailed assessment process and the demand for additional service provision would have substantial implications for local authority expenditure. We were sustained in that view by some of the comments received from the local authority associations.
Local authorities are already under a duty, under the Race Relations Act 1976, to make appropriate arrangements with a view to securing that their various functions are carried out with due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups. In appropriate circumstances, they will be required to provide interpretation services for people who cannot communicate in English. The foreign language problem is therefore dealt with in other ways. In this clause we are dealing with communication problems that arise from disability.
The effect of the Government's new clause will be to require local authorities, when assessing a disabled person's need for social services, to provide an opportunity for the disabled person, or his representative, to make representations on the need for social services, as they perceive them, and, if requested by the disabled person or his representative, to provide a written statement that outlines the services they intend to provide, to give an explanation of the basis upon which the assessment has been made; to provide an opportunity for the disabled person or his representative to make further representations within a reasonable period about particular needs; to consider such further representations and to inform the disabled person or his representative of the outcome and

the reasons for the decision; and to provide appropriate interpretation services for disabled people, or their representatives, who are unable to communicate normally because of disability. We propose with new clause 10 to amend in the same way the provisions governing interpreters in that part of the Bill which relates to carers.
This important clause also has considerable resource implications, particularly for local authorities. Apart from that, they will need time in which to gear themselves up for undertaking the assessments that are provided for in the new clause. Therefore, in all honesty I must place on record the fact that the resource and administrative implications will have to be taken into account by the Government when they introduce the commencement orders for these measures.
I commend the new clause to the House.

Mr. Ashley: I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the House was listening very carefully a few moments ago when your predecessor in the Chair said that we have a long way to go before we dispose of the Bill. Accordingly, therefore, I shall cut down what would have been a half-hour speech to one of 30 seconds. Clause 6, which provides for interpreters, is inadequate. It says that local authorities will provide interpreters if they are necessary.
Local authorities are good, bad, and indifferent. The bad and the indifferent ones will not provide interpreters. That is a matter of very great significance to deaf people. It is not a matter of words but of what is meant by what is said. Deaf people know what they require. I hope that this clause will be reconsidered and amended in another place.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I welcome the news of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), and I share his worries about the time factor. As my right hon. Friend is chairman of the all-party group, which has given enormous support to the Bill, for which we are all grateful, we must take on board the important point that my right hon. Friend has made.
We are grateful to the Government for the progress that has been made on the issue of assessment. It would be churlish to say otherwise. New clause 9 is comprehensive and greatly improves the services which disabled people will receive. We have not got all that we wanted and there are some details which need examining. That is especially true of interpretation, which my right hon. Friend has mentioned. It appears that a disabled person can be excluded as he is unlikely to be able to communicate with the authorities. Overall I am pleased with the Government's response. If this new clause is approved we shall have made considerable progress.

Mr. Alfred Morris: As with new clause 8, conventional wisdom on this side of the House regarding new clause 9 is that the Government are giving 80 per cent. of what was proposed in the original Bill. We accept what is offered.
To put it another way, it is rather like demolishing what we thought was a very desirable residence and replacing it with a rather less attractive residence. Nevertheless needs must and we accept the Government's proposition.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 10

DUTY OF LOCAL AUTHORITY TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ABILITIES OF CARER

'Where—

(a) a disabled person is living at home and receiving a substantial amount of care on a regular basis from another person (who is not a person employed to provide such care by any body in the exercise of its functions under any enactment), and
(b) it falls to a local authority to decide whether the disabled person's needs call for the provision by them of any services for him under any of the welfare enactments,

the local authority shall, in deciding that question, have regard to the ability of that other person to continue to provide such care on a regular basis.'—[Mr. Newton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment (a), at end add
'and shall determine the need of that other person for support and assistance in providing the care required to enable the disabled person to remain living at home.'
and Government amendment No. 5.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I am conscious that in presenting new clause 10 I am in the odd position as Minister with responsibility for the disabled of taking part, for the first time, in the proceedings.
The House will understand if I use the words used earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) that I too have been removed from public life by the proceedings of the Social Security Bill upstairs. I am not quite sure whether I would regard that as being removed from public life, but it certainly is as obscure as it is strenuous. There will be those in the House who feel that a Minister for Social Security who has been through the last two months of argument, especially on severe weather, would welcome a period of obscurity. In some ways that is true.
I express my regret to the House that I have been unable to take part in the earlier proceedings. I had a conflicting engagement this morning, also of great importance to disabled people. I attended a conference on the McColl report on the artificial limb and appliance service. I notice that the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) appears not to have heard about that. It was organised in Kensington by Therapy Weekly. I spent an hour and a quarter at the conference this morning.
I would like to take an opportunity to pay my own tribute to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) and other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) who have played an important part in presenting the proposals. The hon. Gentlemen have played a constructive part in working with the Government to reach the present position.
Albeit in his absence, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health who, because of my absence and other commitments, has taken a special interest in the Bill. He has played a skillful and constructive part, along with the Opposition Members. I only hope that my own interest which I can assure but not prove, but which has been expressed behind the scenes, has been helpful and constructive.
The House will be aware that the Government strongly support the principle which inspired the original clause presented by the hon. Member for Monklands, West which

is clause 5 in the Bill as it stands. The same principle underlines the Government's new clause 10 which is intended to replace clause 5.
We recognise the vital role of informal carers in providing support for disabled people who live in the community. We have tried to reflect that in a variety of ways recently, including the important work being done in and through the Department's social work service, now the social services inspectorate. For example, we have mounted a variety of studies and seminars, in which I have taken part occasionally, to draw much greater attention to the needs of informal carers and to encourage those engaged in the provision of services to take more account of those needs in their services.
Despite that, we did not feel, as my right hon. Friend will have explained earlier, that clause 5 was acceptable in view of the open-ended statutory obligation it imposed on local authorities and of the potentially large implications for them and for resources going well beyond those already represented by other parts of the Bill. We therefore propose to replace clause 5 with new clause 10, which would require social services departments, when assessing the needs of a disabled person in receipt of a substantial amount of regular care from any person other than an employee of the statutory services, to have regard to the carer's ability to continue to provide that care.
Although that provision is in several respects more limited than the hon. Member for Monklands, West would have wished, it goes further in one respect. Following the consultatio exercise, we concluded that it would be impracticable to restrict the definition of carer to people in the same household as the disabled person, so new clause 10 extends the definition of carer to include any person who provides a substantial amount of regular informal care. I hope that that modification is thought sensible.
I should like to say something about amendment (a) and the starred amendment (b), which has been tabled by the hon. Member for Caernarfon but has not been selected. Apart from a minor technical objection, which I shall not go into, we are anxious that amendment (a) would virtually restore the open-ended commitment which we felt unable to accept in the original clause. I know that the hon. Member for Monklands, West doubts whether the interpretation of his amendment is correct but I am sure that he recognises that, in the letter circulated to all of us today by the Association of County Councils, it says that new clause 10 is probably all that is possible. It also says that it is anxious about the additional resource consequences which would be reflected if the amendment were incorporated.
It is with some regret that I cannot advise the House to accept amendment (a). If the hon. Gentleman and the House are ready to accept my advice, I shall re-examine new clause 10 to see whether there is any way in which we can modify our proposal to help meet the hon. Gentleman's concern. That is not a commitment beyond a genuine commitment to examine the matter. I shall also consider amendment (b), which would extend the new clause fairly generally to clarify the anxiety that underlies both amendments.
We must accept that a balance has to be found between taking what I regard as a valuable step forward in new clause 10 to recognise the needs of carers more by doing so in an Act of Parliament and writing into the Bill a provision with potential resource implications which


might mean considerable deferment of the time when it is possible to bring the provision into effect under the commencement order procedure.
12.45 pm
We must ensure proper recognition of the need to consider the position of carers. My concern is such that I would rather have a clause that we can hope to bring into effect reasonably quickly than one which while it might represent a world to which we hope to be able to move in due course, might delay introducing effective legislation that recognises the problems that face carers.
If the House is willing to accept the new clause in the spirit in which it has been tabled, it would be one of the Bill's provisions that we could hope to bring into effect at an early stage.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Again, I shall attempt to be brief, although the issue which is raised by the new clause is an extremely important one and invites a much longer debate than time allows.
My amendment sought to emphasise that our aim should be to enable disabled persons to remain living at home. That was the purpose of the amendment that was moved in Committee with universal approval by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley).
The second purpose of the amendment is to confirm that an assessment of a disabled person's needs could be demanded by the carer. Circular 12/70 of the DHSS implies that a local authority must assess all disabled persons whether or not they want to be assessed. That is 100 per cent. automatic assessment. That does not happen and delays between requests for assessment and assessment are often long. I believe that the existing law needs clarification, and it is not my purpose to extend it. There has been some misunderstanding about the amendment.
The Minister has said—I am sure after great thought—that there is a technical objection to the amendment, and I must consider that seriously, which I do. I take on board that he has said that he will re-examine these matters, including the amendment of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), which has not been selected. When the Minister has an opportunity to carry out that re-examination, I ask him to take into account the discussions that we had in Committee and the representations that we have received from many professional bodies and voluntary organisations as well as individuals in response to the document on resources which was produced by the Government. I hope that we can take up that issue again on Third Reading.
I am certain that the group which is making the greatest contribution towards coping with the problems faced by the disabled and saving the Treasury the most money is that which is formed by carers. That said, the Minister is right when he says that it would be wrong if Parliament, in undertaking a serious review of the disabled, took a decision which had not been properly considered. I would not want to take that risk. The problem is too important to allow that to happen and carers deserve much more consideration than a hasty decision. Without withdrawing one iota from the commitment of the sponsors of the Bill towards carers, I do not propose to press my amendment.

Mr. Rowe: There would be tremendous medium and long-term savings in looking after carers a great deal better than at present. A horrifying proportion of carers are more than 60 years of age and many of them are suffering from a wide variety of potential or existing disabilities because of the pressure under which they live. More than anything else they need some form of respite care and, even as far as the Government have gone, that is a very important step.
I should like to make a point similar to the one I made earlier. I believe that there is enormous scope far beyond anything that the Government have so far admitted, for using those currently unemployed, especially young people, through the community programme and other ways to provide the respite for carers that we are talking about and support for handicapped people in their own homes. It has been estimated that more than 2 million handicapped people are looked after at home and the opportunities for using the community programme are colossal. The experience of community service volunteers with the independent living scheme is an indicator in one direction and its experience of placing more than 2,000 young people every year at a cost of £300 per head a year in this way is a clear sign of what can be done. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, who knows so much about this subject will urge the Paymaster General, who says that in his experience the scope does not exist, to look at the possibility of setting up in his own Department, in conjuction with the community programme, the kind of national scheme which would give carers the support they need. If he does not provide that support, he will land the Health Service with a colossal bill because it will break down.

Mr. Wigley: I shall be brief for obvious reasons, because I have been exhorting other people to be brief.
The position of carers is extremely important, as the Minister has said today and on other occasions. Although it is not possible to go as far in the Bill as we had originally hoped, I trust that we can consider whether new clause 10 can be more finely tuned to achieve the objectives referred to by the Minister. I thank the Minister for his willingness to respond.
Amendment (b) is starred, so we cannot take it on board today. However, perhaps between now and the Bill's consideration in another place it will be possible to see the difference between amendment (a) and amendment (b). Amendment (a) refers to determining
the needs of that other person
and amendment (b) refers to
whether by making available additional services, the provision of that care may be maintained."'
There is a difference in that it does not bring in an additional assessment procedure, but tries to help the Government to achieve their objective of giving support to enable a disabled person to remain in the community. As a responsibility for assessment of disabled person already exists, all we are doing is extending the Government's clause to provide that the local authorities, in assessing that need, shall also have regard to
whether by making additional services available, the provision of that care may be maintained.
That is a compromise between amendment (a) and where the Government start. It may give an opportunity to achieve our aim—in other words, to provide services to help disabled people to remain in the community without bringing about an additional bureaucracy of any sort or


additional assessment procedures which may consume resources. At the same time, we should be able to direct services to where there has been maximum impact and by doing that avoid the additional public cost of people having to go into institutional care which is unacceptable for social reasons. There may be room for consideration along those lines in another place, and if the Minister will ensure that we will be grateful.

Mr. Thurnham: The clause draws attention to the great job done by carers and the massive cost involved in the provisions to give them adequate help. I have been happy to support new clauses 11 and 12, but the cost aspect has caused concern. I note that the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) has said that he will not press his proposal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) would have liked to speak on this clause if he was here. He has asked me to apologise for his absence. I understand that the Prime Minister is visiting his constituency to look at new facilities for the disabled, and that is why he felt unable to be here today. He has asked me to add his congratulations to those already given to the hon. Member for Monklands, West on his work in introducing the Bill and on the Government's warm and positive response to the spirit of it and their backing of the need for resources.
I should like to mention again to my hon. Friend the Minister the points made by the Association of County Councils in a letter that I received today. The ACC cautioned that if a Act is put on the statute book but not implemented, that can lead to considerable difficulties. The ACC refers to the fact that
the proviso of deferring implementation until those resources are available has proved problematic in the past. The Children Act 1975, for example, was implemented piecemeal over more than 10 years which contributed in no small measure to the current confusions and complexities of child care law. The Government should accept the need to discuss with those responsible for giving effect to the Bill a proper programme of implementation fully resourced at each stage.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Monklands, West in putting forward the compromises that he has, will expect to see the Bill implemented to a proper timetable as soon as it is on the statute book.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Some hon. Members have buzz words and buzz expressions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) always argues that where one sees a disabled person, one sees a disabled family. Amendment (a) goes to the heart of the matter. The carer is absolutely essential, and often is part of the family.
I have a buzz word in the House. When I talk about disability I always talk about "slice by slice". I am a great salami expert. We have had two slices of salami today. I hope, from what the Minister said, that there is a slight chance that he has got the knife over another small slice and will move a little further towards helping us. Even the Americans, in the latest report on independence, produced by the Council for the Handicapped, made that very point.
I make this one plea to the Minister. He and I have talked often about the use of advanced technology to allow disabled people and their families to have some form of independent living. We are making considerable progress, but when we talk about the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill, it is not so easy to provide what is needed in the way of environmental controllers to give that

independence. Therefore, the carer becomes more important than ever and is of deep consequence and significance for the family.
I hope that the Minister will think carefully about his half promise. If he made it a firm promise, I should be happy.

Mr. Kennedy: The caring issue particularly interests and concerns me. Of all the things in the Bill, what attracted me in particular was the opportunity at long last to have this recognised in legislation. At first we did not know what form the recognition would take. However, it is important that there is some recognition of the role and contribution of informal carers, and of local authorities having to take those people into account in their planning, services and so on.
As there appears to be further compromise going on between the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), and the Minister, which is welcome, I hope that once the measure becomes law the Government will, in the spirit of the Bill and their own clause, take further opportunities to try to encourage local authorities to enter into voluntary agreements with carers on the provision that can be made available to them. I accept that there are revenue stipulations. There is an enormous amount to be done.
I echo what the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) has said, that we have many highly charged political debates in the Chamber about the future of the welfare state. We all agree that if it were not for the informal, and often unnoticed and insufficiently supported, caring sector in our community, the welfare state would be in a state of crisis and collapse. Therefore, anything that gives legislative recognition to the position of carers, as the new clause does, is welcome.

1 pm

Mr. Ashley: I felt slightly worried until, a few moments ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) made his standard salami speech, and I know now that we are back on course and having a normal debate on disability.
The Minister must have felt uncomfortable when speaking about new clause 10, because he is aware of the problem of carers. Some time ago, in chilly Westminster Hall, he received a deputation, which I led, of appallingly disabled people and their carers. He listened sympathetically, and the case was put vividly by those carers whose lives have been devastated.
Some Members who have spoken today have got the costs all wrong, as have the Government, because costs will be saved by helping carers. If a carer cannot cope, both the disabled person and the carer will go into hospital and the cost will become astronomic. This is a saving measure, and a humanitarian one. It is a cliché to say that we cannot afford to do anything, but it is true. We cannot afford not to help carers. Carers are an exploited section of our community. They save the Government, not just the DHSS, billions of pounds. I hope that carers will be helped because they deserve to be and because they will help the Government. I am glad that the Minister will reconsider the issue.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The Minister said that he would look at new clause 10 to see whether it could be strengthened. It can be strengthened. Our view is that new


clause 10 merely reflects existing local authority practice. I understand that that is also the view of the Association of County Councils. We hope that the Minister's review of what he is proposing will proceed urgently and that there will be more official understanding than we have seen so far of the vital importance—I use the word "vital" in its literal sense—of recognising the centrality of the role played by carers of disabled people.
We are extremely reluctant to see any dilution of the Bill's provisions on this important matter. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) said, if the carer breaks down, then two people can find themselves in institutions. It is both self-defeating and inhumane not to help the carer where that can vouchsafe the independence of the disabled person. Our fundamental concern is not to delay the proceedings on the Bill and thus, although reluctantly, we accept what the Minister has said.
The hon. Member For Exeter (Mr. Hannam) played an important part in the discussions on this matter in Committee. We appreciate why he cannot be with us today, and I join in the compliments that have been paid to his tireless efforts in support of the Bill.

Mr. Newton: I warmly endorse what has been said about my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) who has played an important and constructive part in our debates. I intervene again to make sure that I cannot later be accused of having misled the House. I am conscious, as the House knows, of the needs and problems of carers, and I am anxious to advance in a number of ways the extent to which we recognise and meet those needs throughout the variety of our provisions and not just those covered by the Bill.
In fairness to all, I must make it clear that in what I said about looking again at amendment (a), tabled by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), and amendment (b) tabled by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), I do not wish to suggest that I see an opportunity greatly to widen the scope of the Government's new clause in a form that would have substantial resource implications. As I understood the hon. Member for Monklands, West, he did not feel that his amendment had those implications. If it could be shown that his interpretation of the amendment was right and that ours was wrong, or that we could make some other change that would help to meet anxieties, I would be willing to look at that. But I cannot give a commitment to conduct an extensive review of new clause 10 in a way that would give the impression that we would greatly extend and expand its scope in terms of its resource implications. I would not like to mislead anyone about that.

Mr. Tom Clarke: The Minister referred to the possible interpretations of my amendment and undertook to reconsider it. Will that be in time for the Government's views to be considered by the other place?

Mr. Newton: If I could see any way of achieving a satisfactory compromise between the different interpretations of the hon. Gentleman's amendment, I would hope that it might be done in time for the debate in the other place. However, I do not wish to leave any room for doubt. I do not believe it is possible for the Government to recommend amendments in the other place that will

clearly greatly increase still further the Bill's resource implications. In so far as we are talking about amendments that make the purpose of new clause 10 clearer, I certainly undertake to look at them. But I cannot undertake to incorporate or recommend amendments that would increase still further the Bill's resource implications.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 13

POWERS OF THE COURTS IN RESPECT OF DISABLED PERSONS

'The following subsections shall be inserted into section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970:—

"(3) Without prejudice to any remedy prescribed by this Act or by any other statutory provision, it shall be the right of any person to make application to the appropriate court;

(a) in the case of a person to whom subsection (1) of this section applies, where a local authority:

(i) has failed to make reasonable provision for any of the needs of that person in respect of which arrangements are to be made under subsections (1) hereof; or
(ii) refuses to assess any or all of the needs of that person in order to determine whether those needs are matters in respect of which arrangements have to be made under subsection (1) of this section;

(b) in the case of any other person, where a local authority has determined that that person is not a person to whom section 1(1) applies.

(4) An application under subsection (3) may be made by any person in respect of whom it is claimed that subsection (1) applies provided that, where (an appointment has been made in accordance with section 1 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act, the application may be made by the person so appointed.

(5) On an application made under subsection (3), without prejudice to any other powers of the court, the appropriate court may:

(a) make a declaration as to whether any arrangements made in accordance with subsection (1) of this section are reasonable to meet the needs of the person by or on behalf of whom the application is made;
(b) make a declaration that the needs of any person by or on behalf of whom the application is made are needs in respect of which arrangements have to be made under subsection (1) of this section;
(c) make a declaration that a person is a person to whom subsection 1(1) of this Act applies;
(d) make a declaration as to the arrangements which it is necessary for a local authority to make under subsection (1) of this section for any person by or on behalf of whom application is made;
(e) award damages to any person by or on behalf of whom application is made where a declaration is made under paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of this subsection in respect of any period during which:

(i) the local authority has failed to make reasonable provision in accordance with subsection (1) for any of the needs of a person to whom that subsection applies;
(ii) the local authority has refused to assess any need of a person to whom subsection (1) applies to determine whether it is a need in respect of which arrangements would have to be made under that subsection, provided that the court shall only award damages for any need in respect of which arrangements would have had to have been made;


(iii) the local authority has determined that a person is not a person to whom subsection (1) applies and the court has granted a declaration in accordance with paragraph (c) hereof, provided that the court is satisfied that arrangements should have been made under subsection (1) in respect of any needs of that person and no such arrangements were made.

(6) The appropriate court for the purposes of subsections (3) and (5) is:

(a) the county court except in a case falling within paragraph (b) hereof;
(b) the High Court in accordance with the provisions of section 31 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 where the relief sought includes an order of mandamus.".'.—[Mr. Cohen.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 8.

Mr. Cohen: I should like to give my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on his excellent Bill. I am aware that time is short, and as I wish to see the Bill make progress, I shall be as brief as possible.
The new clause strengthens the Bill by providing better legal rights for the disabled. It comes via NETWORK, the law and advisory centre for the handicapped and their families, which does valuable work in supplying desperately needed legal assistance to many of the disabled and their families, including some of my constituents. Indeed, I welcome the decision announced this week to award it a central Government grant.
The new clause is the opposite of Government amendment No. 8, which continues the current restrictions on a disabled person making an application to the court under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. My new clause gives any person a direct right to make an application to the court. It also gives the court power to make declarations on whether existing arrangements are reasonable in order to meet the needs of the disabled person, and on what arrangements the local authority should make for him.
The court will also have the power to award damages if the local authority has failed to make reasonable provision and if it has refused to assess a disabled person's need. The new clause ensures that local authorities carry out their duties to the disabled as, if they do not do so, they could face the sanctions of the court. It is clearly not right that Parliament's stated aim to achieve better conditions for the disabled should not be fully accessible, through the courts, to disabled individuals. Yet that is the case now, particularly as under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, long delays in exercising ministerial or local authority powers to take a case to court can deny rights.
The new clause seeks to tackle that, and to provide full access to the court. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) said in Committee, we are not seeking new rights but the better enforcement of existing rights. Indeed, as I know that he wants to say a word on this important issue, I shall sit down.

Mr. Alfred Morris: My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) was eminently correct to say that we

are seeking not new rights for disabled people but the better enforcement of existing rights for which Parliament has already given its sanction and made provision. It will be argued that at present disabled people can go to the Secretary of State for Social Services with a request that he should use his default powers if they believe that they are being unjustly treated by local authorities. Yet there has been unconscionable delay in the handling of complaints from the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, as from other organisations. It is now widely felt that procedures could be speeded up in a way that would help more disabled people to achieve the benefits made for them by the House of Commons.
In this regard, I must make it clear that a mandatory duty already exists under the 1970 Act to assess the needs of disabled people. Financial factors are legally an irrelevant criterion in the assessment of needs; if need is accepted there is a mandatory duty to make the arrangements required. It may still come as a surprise to some, in both town and county halls, that the rights of disabled people are that strong under the law as it now stands.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton does not wish to press his amendment to a division. He is extremely conscious, as I am, of the need to proceed quickly to Third reading. However, I hope that the Minister, in replying, will accept that there is now a compelling need to speed up the process of dealing with the complaints of disabled people, more especially when they are supported by organisations that Members on both sides of the House respect.

Mr. Newton: In the light of what has been said by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), I hope it will not be discourteous if I do not rehearse at length the details of the Government's argument that led us to wish to delete present clause 8, thus leading us to resist new clause 13. I will comment briefly on what the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe said about default inquiries under section 36 of the National Assistance Act 1948. I undertake to consider at greater length than the two minutes I have had so far what he has said. He will know that a number of applications have been made under that section of the 1948 Act and inquiries made, but as yet no default order has been made by a Secretary of State of any political colour. It is important to recognise that in several cases the inquiries that have been initiated by the relevant Minister and the Department have led to a change of policy, at least for the individual concerned, even though in other cases it has been found that the authority had in fact met its duty.
I realise that sometimes criticism is made of the time taken to make such inquiries, but I have to recognise that the first stage in such an inquiry is necessarily to seek the comments and response of the local authority concerned. In itself, that can often take some time. I certainly hope that these matters will be dealt with expeditiously. I note the criticism that the right hon. Gentleman has made and I shall certainly take it into account in considering whether there is any action I can take at present that would help to ease anxieties.

Mr. Cohen: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

AUTHORISATION OF REPRESENTATIVE

Amendment made: No. 1, in page 1, line 7, leave out clause 1.—[Mr. Hayhoe.]

Clause 2

PROVISIONS RELATING TO ASSESSMENT

Amendment made: No. 2, in page 2, line 26, leave out clause 2.—[Mr. Hayhoe.]

Clause 3

PERSONS LEAVING SPECIAL EDUCATION

Amendment made: No. 3, in page 3, line 23, leave out clause 3.—[Mr. Hayhoe.]

Clause 4

PERSONS DISCHARGED FROM HOSPITAL

Amendment made: No. 4, in page 4, line 10, leave out clause 4.—[Mr. Hayhoe.]

Clause 5

CARERS

Amendment made: No. 5, in page 4, line 33, leave out clause 5.—[Mr. Hayhoe.]

Clause 6

PROCEDURES FOR ASSESSMENT

Amendment made: No. 6, in page 5, line 14, leave out clause 6.—[Mr. Hayhoe.]

Clause 7

STATEMENTS

Amendment made: No. 7, in page 6, line 26, leave out clause 7.—[Mr. Hayhoe.]

Clause 8

VALIDITY OF DECISION OF LOCAL AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 2 OF 1970 ACT

Amendment made: No. 8, in page 7, line 13, leave out clause 8.—[Mr. Hayhoe.]

Clause 9

APPLICATION OF PART I TO SCOTLAND

Amendment made: No. 9, in page 7, line 25, leave out clause 9.—[Mr. Hayhoe.]

Clause 10

INFORMATION

Mr. Newton: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 8, line 4, leave out from '1970,' to end of line 7 and insert—

(a) for "any other of those services" there shall be "any other service provided by the authority (whether under any such arrangements or not)"; and
(b) at the end there shall be inserted "and of any service provided by any other authority or organisation which in the opinion of the authority is so relevant and of which particulars are in the authority's possession.".'.

The background to the amendment is that by amending section 1(2)(b) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, clause 10 of the Bill will require local authorities to inform a recipient of services under that Act, and of other services provided by the authority, Government Department, public body or voluntary organisation which are considered relevant to that person's needs. They already have a duty to provide information about services provided under the 1970 Act.
I need hardly say that the Government are sympathetic to the objectives of the clause. However, we have reservations on two points. First, to place a statutory requirement on local authorities to obtain information from a number of other agencies on the services available could represent a substantial additional administrative burden, which would be difficult in itself. Secondly, the clause as drafted appears to take no account of the problems which could arise for a local authority given that proposed statutory commitment, if the information that it needed was not provided by the other organisations from whom it would necessarily need to obtain it. Therefore, we propose to amend clause 10 so that local authorities will be required to provide information about other services provided by the same authority, and about other services provided by other organisations which the local authority considers relevant and information about which is available to it. I hope that the House will think that that is a reasonable compromise and a helpful advance.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11

CO-OPTION OF DISABLED PEOPLE TO COMMITTEES

Mr. Galley: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 8, line 13 after 'people', insert
'or of people with special knowledge of such disablement'.
This is a minor amendment, but I have noted the concern expressed to me privately by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) about its effect. The principle behind clause 11 is that some disabled people cannot readily speak and act for themselves. When such a disabled person cannot act in any consultative capacity, it seems reasonable to allow people with special knowledge of that particular disability to do so. On that basis it does not seem unreasonable to extend the principle of consultation, as well as the appointments from groups of people with special knowledge, when disabled persons cannot speak for themselves. That is a minor matter, but I note that the hon. Gentleman is a little worried about the amendment and suggests that it would be better to consider it in another place. Therefore, I certainly do not wish to press it.

Mr. Newton: In the light of that, rather than taking up time expressing my reservations about the amendment—although I must say that in our view it would be technically inoperative, apart from anything else—I shall accept with good grace my hon. Friend's decision not to press the amendment.

Mr. Galley: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12

REPORTS TO PARLIAMENT

Amendment made: No. 12, in page 8, line 14, leave out clause 12.—[Mr. Hayhoe.]

Clause 13

REPORT BY SECRETARY OF STATE ON DISABLED CHILDREN IN SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr. Newton: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 8, line 27, leave out clause 13.
The clause, which was added in Committee, would require the Secretary of State to lay before each House of Parliament annually such information as he had obtained from local authorities on the operation of the Education Act 1981 in respect of disabled people. The Government believe that this aditional requirement is unnecessary since the Secretary of State already has sufficient powers under section 92 of the Education Act 1944 to obtain any information that he requires from local education authorities. Moreover, statistical information about special education provision is already published in a document called "Statistics of Education: Schools". To impose this additional requirement would be an unnecessary additional load for both central and local Government. Therefore, I hope that the House will accept our amendment to delete clause 13.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14

STRUCTURE PLANS

Mr. Newton: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 8, line 31, leave out clause 14.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 18.

Mr. Newton: By amending the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and the Local Government Act 1985, clause 14 would require planning authorities in the development plan process to do three things: first, to give special consideration to the needs of disabled people; secondly, to take appropriate measures to improve the physical environment for disabled people; and, thirdly, to provide disabled people with adequate information and opportunities to make representations about local and structure plans. Planning authorities would also be required to have regard to the relevant provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act and of building regulations about access for disabled people when considering applications for certain types of development.
The Government accept that planning authorities should have regard to the needs of disabled people in carrying out their duties, but clause 14 seeks to introduce an inappropriate level of detail into the legislation, especially given that the existing legislation already provides, in more general terms, for local planning authorities to have regard to the needs of disabled people where appropriate, to give adequate publicity to their

proposals for structure and local plans, and not least to have regard to the relevant provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. It would be inappropriate to require local planning authorities when considering planning applications to have regard to building regulations, which are a separate procedure.
Amendment No. 14 would omit clause 14 from the Bill. Amendment No. 18 is consequential to amendment No. 14. If it transpires that the attention of planning authorities needs to be directed more closely to the needs of disabled people, that could be done in the form of guidance from the Department of the Environment. I understand that my colleagues there are considering whether such guidance might be helpful.

Mr. Wigley: Can the Minister give me an undertaking that he and his colleagues will consider seriously the possibility of guidelines drawing to the attention of local authorities the benefits that have been provided in areas that have tried that approach? There have been positive benefits for disabled people. It does not matter how it is done, provided that the objectives are achieved and the needs of disabled people are taken into account at all opportunities in the work of the authorities within the confines of structure planning.

Mr. Newton: I have the greatest sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's comments and I shall draw them to the attention of my colleagues at the Department of the Environment, who have more than shown their good faith in this connection during the past year or 18 months with the important changes that have been made to building regulations to improve the extent to which new buildings, especially those to which the public have access, take better account of the needs for access of disabled people. They have made some important progress in that area in the past year, and I have no doubt that my colleagues will be more than happy to do anything that they believe will genuinely help.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16

ADVANCEMENT OF HEALTH OF PEOPLE IN SCOTLAND

Mr. John MacKay: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 9, line 36, leave out Clause 16.
I share the anxiety expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House that effective joint planning arrangements should operate in Scotland and that there should be participation by the voluntary organisations. That was one feature of the new planning arrangements which we introduced a year ago. They have been implemented by health boards and local authorities, and progress has been achieved. It would not be wise to abandon what has been done and brand the arrangements as a failure without allowing reasonable time for the important results that we are seeking to secure to emerge fully.
Another point of concern is that the detailed statutory arrangements in clause 16 would apply only to the disabled, not to the full range of priority groups to which the existing joint planning arrangements are fully directed. Clearly, one main group about which we are worried is the elderly, and it is important that, as at present, the joint planning committees should cover them as well as the disabled groups specified in the Bill.
I am well aware of the strong views of voluntary bodies that joint planning in Scotland should have a statutory basis. Other interests must be considered. I am convinced that the present voluntary arrangements can work. Statutory prescription and the creation of a bureaucratic structure are not substitutes for willingness, freely expressed, to work together. There is no difference between the Bill's sponsor and myself on the merits of joint planning committees although he takes a more pessimistic view of the likelihood of success of my circular last year. Time has still to show which of us is right.
I am receiving encouraging reports from health boards. There is a great deal of activity, and reports are at various stages of preparation. It has been put to me that I should take the opportunity of this legislation to give the Secretary of State powers to ensure these results. Clause 16 does that by prescribing a range of matters in detail. I have been reluctant to go along with that method. In Committee, the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) described my right hon. Friend and I as Mr. Nice and Mr. Nasty, from some television programme, and could not decide who was who. I wish to add to his inability to decide by showing a certain flexibility. I hope that I can go some way towards meeting the hon. Gentleman's genuine aim to give joint planning statutory backing. I should like my circular and the voluntary approach to produce the goods we both want.
I would be prepared to seek statutory powers to enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to prescribe for joint planning committees and their activities. These powers would not need to be brought into operation if the current arrangements prove successful. If it is decided that the voluntary route is not proving satisfactory, my right hon. Friend will be able to enforce the arrangements laid down in the circular and any other desirable aspects that he chooses to include in the regulations. Health boards and local authorities would therefore have to carry out the aims to which my circular addressed itself.
If the House agrees to delete clause 16, I shall ensure that either a suitable extension to clause 15 or a separate new clause is brought forward in another place. In addition, it will be necessary to deal with the exclusion of the elderly—the hon. Member for Monklands, West very much appreciates this point—by amending the long title for this specific purpose. I hope that those two points are acceptable to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I welcome the speech of the Under-Secretary of State. None of us is looking for complaints. Despite what was said in Committee about Mr. Nice and Mr. Nasty, I shall reserve my judgment until I see what happens on Third Reading.
There has been a good, well-informed debate in Scotland on joint planning, and I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State appears to have listened to it. Judging by his last few sentences, we are well on the way towards convincing him that the time for joint planning of a voluntary nature in Scotland is fast disappearing. No one has disputed the success of joint planning in England and Wales, given the statutory backing there. I believe that the objective, which the Under-Secretary of State and I share, of seeking successful joint planning would be better met by the type of statutory support which the hon. Gentleman led me to believe was possible when the matter is

considered in the other place. This is so important a matter that the health boards alone are not always the best bodies to take the final decision without the kind of consultation that takes place in England and Wales with those involved in social services, housing and the voluntary organisations which know so much about these problems. It is very much in the interests of democratic policy formulation in Scotland that their views should be taken into account.
I am delighted that the Minister appears to accept the main thrust of the representations that were made to him and to his Department when the consultative document was published. We have made considerable progress. I was delighted when the Minister mentioned a full range of priorities, including the elderly. Our goal was not so ambitious. However, it is splendid if the Minister intends to go that far. We welcome it. When this matter goes to another place, the debates that we have had on these issues will do nothing but good. In that spirit, I thank the Minister.

Mr Dewar: It is accepted on all sides of the House that this has been a useful and helpful day. Although we have not got everything that we wanted from the Scottish Office, the Minister has gone some way towards meeting our wishes. He said that he is flexible. I thought I heard the joints creaking a little but undoubtedly he has made an effort and we are grateful to him. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) is present for the debate. It shows the efficiency of the Welsh Nationalists' whipping arrangements. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) should be congratulated.
This is an important matter. I do not want to labour the issue by making a lengthy speech. However, considerable anxiety has been expressed in Scotland about the apparent lack of the kind of leadership over joint planning that has been shown south of the Border by the Department of Health and Social Security and the Welsh Office. It is felt that there has been an absence of concerted action across Scotland and an absence of the kind of consultation that involves voluntary groups—those who do so much valuable work for the disabled, the handicapped and the elderly—in a general and significant way. Clause 16 was added to the Bill in Committee in order to remedy that lack.
Depite the Minister's confidence about the way in which voluntary arrangements have been developed, although joint consultative committees are mandatory in England and Wales, Scotland has been left only with the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 which contains the hope that health boards and local authorities will co-operate. However, it does not contain a statutory duty or provide for the kind of structured framework in which consultation takes place in other parts of the country.
The Scottish Office circular of 24 April 1985 has been widely seen to be inadequate by everybody, except the Minister. Paragraph 6 says:
These plans"—
these are the joint plans—
would in the first instance be for the guidance of the health board and the local authorities concerned; they need not be formally submitted to the Secretary of State, and will not require his approval, although it would be helpful if copies were sent to him.


That is a pretty "peelie wall" approach by the Minister. Representations have been made to me that there has been a certain slippage in expectations when measured against the expectations aroused by that circular.
I put down various written Questions which were very helpfully answered by the Minister in anticipation of this debate. On the preparation of plans, he was able to say that only Shetland and Orkney health boards had prepared the plans requested and that health boards were not required formally to submit copies of their plans to the Secretary of State. However, Shetland health board has sent a copy of its plan, which covers all four priority groups, to the Scottish Home and Health Department. All credit to Shetland, and all credit to Orkney. However, the Minister has been unable to say anything about the rest of Scotland. Important though the islands are, a great deal of Scotland lies outside Orkney and Shetland.
That underlines the point that I am making. The Minister said in another answer that the Government have no reason to believe that the joint planning and liaison committees are not following the guidance set out in the April 1985 circular. The Minister may not have any reason to believe that they are not but neither is he in a position to say that they are. That is a weakness in an area in which there has been, over a period of time, a good deal of anxiety about the lack of progress and lack of involvement especially of the voluntary groups.
In the last minutes of the Report stage I do not wish to be churlish about the Minister's efforts. I have read the reports on the debate in Committee on 5 February 1986. Acceptance of new clause 12 was urged by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). I read the speech of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary and he appeared to be a little bit complacent about what was happening. He discussed the circular which gave the whole process a fresh impetus. He went on to say:
We risk penalising local authorities and health boards which have made real progress, and we risk delaying worthwhile processes which we have worked long and hard to promote.
The Minister now seeks to remove that clause. Later on in the speech the Minister said:
I hope that the Committee will not put the clock back," [Official Report, Standing Committee C; 5 February 1986, c. 50.]
That raised a lot of hackles among the voluntary groups. It came as a surprise to many people in the local authorities and those who are involved in social work. To give statutory impetus to a process which we all agree is an admirable one—the importance of joint planning—is not a matter of dispute between sides. I cannot see that giving joint planning a statutory basis can be described, fairly, as putting the clock back.
I am grateful for the fact that the Minister, not just because of pressure from the House but from groups in Scotland, is prepared to think again and has come a good way towards meeting our points. It is a simple proposition which holds up well in logic and in terms of its administration. If the Minister is correct we do not need a statutory basis. There is, however, no harm in having such a basis. It will reassure people. It will give an edge to joint consultative efforts and will involve the widest possible spectrum of expert opinion.
The Minister is maybe being over optimistic and perhaps some advice which is reaching Members is more accurate. It seems that there is a clear case for giving statutory force to the joint planning and consultation

processes in Scotland parallel to what is happening South of the Border. Although we are not getting everything, I welcome the fact that some gestures have been made.
I recognise the Minister's point on the necessity to extend the process to cover the four priority groupings—the physically and mentally handicapped through to the elderly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) has fought long and hard and with great tactical skill for the Bill. He is happy to accept what is being offered by the Minister. I do not wish in any way to cavil with what he has said and we will certainly watch what happens over the next two years with great care. We hope that the Minister's monitoring of the planning process by means of the circular is positive monitoring. I hope that he will not hesitate to use his powers under the enabling clauses which will be written in another place. That is necessary. The Minister's powers should not be left to lie upon the shelf unused. If there is a need, I hope that the Minister will not hesitate to act.
If it is not uncharitable I shall end on a warning, if not a slightly threatening, note. Whatever monitoring is pursued by the Minister—we shall certainly try to monitor what will happen—there will be groups in every constituency in Scotland who will make sure that the House will not forget about the issue. If we do not make the progress which I believe the importance of the matter deserves we shall be knocking very hard at the Minister's door to remind him of the enabling powers which will be written into the Bill.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I welcome the concessions that the Minister has made. At the outset, many people feared that the Government were sticking their heels in and were unprepared to make concessions. Many people in Scotland in caring organisations were keen that the statutory approach and joint planning should be adopted.
The Scottish working group, composed of 22 organisations, wrote to Scottish Members of Parliament, drawing attention to its fear that the Scottish Office, which, to its credit, has been in the lead in some aspects of care for the disabled, has been lagging behind. I am glad that the Minister has said that he will produce a new clause and alter the long title to deal with the elderly. I should like to thank him for that.
In these circumstances, it is better to be gracious. I know that that is extremely difficult, but those of us who have a proper Christian background are prepared to express gratitude on the Floor of the House occasionally for a sinner come to repentance. That is a rare event for Scottish Office Ministers.
I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) for keeping me informed of progress. I welcome the concessions.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT, REGULATIONS AND EXTENT

Amendments made: No.16, in page 11, line 21 after 'regulations' insert 'or order'.

No. 17, in page 11, line 21 leave out 'made by order'.

No. 18, in page 11 leave out line 25.—[Mr. Hayhoe.]

Mr. Tom Clarke: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The months since early November, when I came first in the ballot, have been incredible but very inspiring. I have learnt a great deal, not least from the Government Front Bench. I hope that it might occasionally admit that it was able to learn something from us. Perhaps more important, we have been able to reach agreement on what I think can be a good and effective Bill which is in the interests of 5·5 million disabled people.
I have to be candid, however. The Bill is not as radical as the Standing Committee would have wished or as I would have hoped, but we are building for the future. The input of disabled people, voluntary organisations and professional bodies into the Bill has been outstanding. There are many people whom I ought to thank. For that very reason, it would be very difficult. I should like, however, to put on record my deep appreciation to Mr. John Healey, Mr. Peter Mitchell and Mr. Hugh Stewart, among others, who have done sterling work in support of the Bill.
I thank right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, especially my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), whose great interest and experience in these matters has been invaluable. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) referred to our unique arrangements for whipping. When we next have a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee I am sure that the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) will be happy to offer his services and that we will be all the better for them. We all appreciate the work that he has done.
We have reached that stage at which we can contemplate what the exercise has achieved thus far. We have had an open and wide-ranging debate, which has involved the public. Some sections of the media have been excellent and others have perhaps been a little disappointing. As time passes those who have been disappointed will perhaps realise the importance of the Bill. We have ensured that a number of vital issues have been considered, such as representation, assessment, the problems of school leavers and the 19-plus problems. We have deliberated also on discharge from psychiatric hospitals and the Scottish planning clause. We have made considerable progress and I do not believe that the House would want to underestimate its scope.
Time after time Government spokesmen have referred to resource implications. The House has reached a conclusion on the matters contained in the Bill after serious consideration. In due course we shall hear the views of those in another place. When we come to that stage and when we reflect in this place on what has been said by their Lordships, perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford), who has a great deal of expertise in many of the matters covered by the Bill, will join in our discussions. I am sure that his contribution will be welcome.
I say in all candour and without, I hope, causing any offence, especially to the Minister for Health, that the Treasury should remember that it is responsible to this place and not the reverse. This place has established priorities for the disabled and mentally handicapped and their carers. We have taken the decision. We could

consider it ill-judged if the Treasury took the view that it should try to thwart the decisions and objectives of the House when the Bill is duly enacted.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for his interest and support. I think that his intervention yesterday was crucial. We have reached the stage when I must express the hope that the Bill will be given its Third Reading. I hope that in time it will be developed to provide a framework for the real progress that I think the disabled will welcome. We have not yet achieved such a framework but the disabled certainly deserve one. I look forward to the time when the many problems the disabled are facing will be solved and when the disabled will feel that they have an enormous contribution to make to our society and the potential which the House wishes them to realise.

Mr. Hayhoe: First, I congratulate warmly the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on what he has achieved. I made it clear throughout that the Government endorse the principles that the Bill seeks to enshrine. On Second Reading, I said:
I hope that the hon. Member for Monklands, West and his sponsors will be prepared to respond constructively to amendments, some perhaps radical and substantial, which the Government will bring forward. If they do, it is likely that at the end of the day they will be responsible for a Bill which provides a useful if modest development of the present legislative basis on which services are provided for disabled people. That is a worthy achievement for any Member of this place."—[Official Report, 17 January 1986; Vol. 89, c. 1372.]
That is the worthy achievement which the hon. Member for Monklands, West is getting close to chalking up today. We now have a measure that will genuinely help to improve services for the disabled without imposing inflexible and impracticable burdens upon local authorities. That is what the Government always hoped would emerge.
The Bill represents an important development of existing provision for the disabled and as such it has significant cost implications. As I have explained, the Government will make commencement orders to bring into effect those of the Bill's provisions which have significant resource implications when the necessary resources are available. Other provisions without significant cost will, I hope, be brought into effect soon after Royal Assent.
We have had a good and constructive debate and not at all the debate that was predicted by those in the media and elsewhere who were questioning the Government's attitudes and intentions and, as they so often do, making wholly and utterly wrong predictions.
The debate has been characterised by the constructive nature of the points raised on both sides of the House. I can assure the House that the Government have noted all the points and many of them reflect issues which were raised during the consultation exercise. We shall be seeking to take them into account in the further consultation and co-operation with the hon. Member for Monklands, West and his hon. Friends following Third Reading when looking at some of the points which have been highlighted and identified during our discussions of amendments which should properly be brought in with the agreement of another place. I must make it clear that such amendments in another place must be on the understanding that they are acceptable to the Government and if they do not add further to the cost of the Bill.
It is fair to say that this is something of a historic day in the development of the legislative structure for the provision of services for disabled people. The hon. Member for Monklands, West rightly and properly paid tribute to some of his advisers from the voluntary sector who, I know, worked closely with my officials on many of the detailed matters concerning this legislation. The hon. Gentleman has steered his Bill with considerable skill, great moderation, great patience and realism of what can be achieved within the constraints, which necessarily control us all, and with consideration for hon. Members in other parts of the House so as to achieve the widest possible area of agreement.
I hope that by praising him in this way I do not influence his reselection, which I hope has been well established by now. At any rate, this achievement, as I have said, is one of which any hon. Member can be proud. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is not yet quite home, as he well recognises. The Bill has to go to another place. If the other place and those responsible for the Bill there have the same skill, moderation, realism, patience and consideration which the hon. Gentleman has shown I see no reason why the Bill should not become law and receive Royal Assent. I say to the hon. Gentleman, as one has sown, so has one reaped. If the response to what I said on Second Reading had not been constructive, realistic and responsible we would not all be congratulating each other. We would probably be jumping up and down with points of order. I am sure that the reason for the presence of the distinguished Leader of the Opposition is to add to the congratulations to his hon. Friend rather than to take advantage of what might have been a rather different situation.
I have no wish to end in any other way than again to congratulate the hon. Gentleman. I have made my gratitude to him clear all along for the courtesy and consideration with which all the dealings we have had together have been carried through. I wish the Bill well.

Mr. Wigley: I shall give up the self-denying ordinance that I have exercised today to congratulate the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on his great achievement in steering this Bill through to Third Reading, not entirely undented but 70 per cent. to 80 per cent. complete. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the decision that he took after coming top of the ballot, to pick up the Bill. There were pressures on him to go in other directions, but he chose the Bill that would do the most good to the most people. He has built up the Bill through Committee and on Report to something that is really worth while.
Many people have helped in getting the Bill through the House. I should like to thank not least those who have been able to come to the Chamber today. There are more people here than there usually are on a Friday. It has not been necessary to divide the House, which is a satisfactory state of affairs, but it was good to see the support of all parties across the House on these important issues. It is good to see the Leader of the Opposition here. I am not sure how much sleep he has had, but no doubt he has had a good celebration. That underlines the importance of these issues.
Reference has been made to those who have worked hard, such as John Healey and Peter Mitchell, as well as organisations that have given support, especially

MENCAP, the Spastics Society, the Scottish organisations, and the Standing Committee of Voluntary Organisations in Wales.
There are important elements in the Bill as it goes forward to the other place, giving representation to those who are incapable of speaking up on their own behalf because of disability. We now have a structure that will enable them to have their case properly heard, and proper assessment and non-bureaucratic and efficient procedures to facilitate that.
Progress has been made today on the position of those leaving special schools. I thank the Government for being willing to accept the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Monklands, West, so that those leaving special schools, will have an assessment before going out into the community. The same will apply to those leaving long-stay hospitals. Those two areas are critical for disabled people and their families. I welcome the approach that the Government have taken today and the commitment that the Ministers have given. I thank all three Ministers for their willingness to meet deputations and discuss these matters. We have not always seen entirely eye to eye in everything, but one never does. The way in which Ministers have responded has been a significant step forward.
The one area in which we have not been able to go as far as we would like is on carers. I hope that the other place will consider what can be done within the resource limitations and that we shall look again at the matter in future months and years, while doing everything that we can. If there is any one group of people who deserve support, it is those who look after disabled people, especially women, who have given up their careers to look after members of the family or others who are disabled.
With regard to resources, the Government said that, according to their own discussion paper, there was a financial implication of between £25 million and £100 million. That is what they were advised. They have grasped the nettle. I hope that that money will become available to turn the legislation into reality. The provisions will have to be phased in, but I hope that the elements that imply expenditure commitments are not left so long as to leave those who are looking forward to their enactment hanging on while there is nothing happening. I realise that some things cannot happen this year. There may be a need to provide money for local authorities, particularly in the next financal year. I hope that there will not be an undue delay beyond that.
Today, a very important Bill is going from this House to another place. I hope that it will be treated constructively there, and that after it comes back here later in the Session it will be on the statute book before too long.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I have refrained from speaking on the Bill, apart from a brief intervention, because, as someone with a lifelong interest in the disabled, I should have been horrifed if I had been instrumental in talking out the Bill. I have sat here through virtually all the proceedings because I believe that the Bill is extremely important. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health said, this is a historic day in the development of services for disabled people.
I have the honour to represent a city with a long tradition of hospital service. Many of the matters that are dealt with in the Bill will set at rest the anxieties of many


of my constituents. They will be glad to know that the gap in the education facilities for young people will, to a large extent, be filled by the Bill. They will be relieved to know that people leaving long-stay hospitals, two of which are in my constituency, will, from now, be assessed properly before they leave, and all the services will be co-ordinated before they are released into the community.
We are fortunate in our local hospitals in that nobody is released into the community without the hospital ensuring that proper services are available for them, and we want to make sure that the high standards that we practise are common throughout the country.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on his enterprise in getting the Bill through and my right hon. Friend the Minister on working so closely with his colleagues in getting the Bill through in an atmosphere of harmony and tremendously positive achievement. I cannot recall in many years a Bill that has given me greater pleasure, and I thank everybody for co-operating in it.

2 pm

Mr. Alfred Morris: Our proceedings on the Bill have been full of surprises. Many strange things have happened. We thought that the Minister for Health had been put in as a night watchman. If that was the original intention, he has played a very long innings. He has been patient and understanding and, although he has not been as helpful as we had wished, we forgive him as the Bill has now reached Third Reading.
Another strange thing is that we had today the maiden speech on the Bill of the Minister for the Disabled. He emerged from the dressing room this morning full of running and we welcomed him to the Dispatch Box. We know that he is involved in other legislation, and I am glad that he agrees that this Bill is deeply important for Britain's 5·5 million disabled people, their families and all who care for them.
There were two schools of thought about when to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). There were those who congratulated him at the beginning of today's proceedings. I thought it safer to wait for the Third Reading as there were some uncertainties this morning about the final outcome. My hon. Friend has been dour—

Mr. Tom Clarke: It is pronounced "doer".

Mr. Morris: —good-humoured, responsive to all possible offers of help and always felicitous in his use, if not his pronunciation, of words.
It is now virtually an annual custom for the House to debate one or more private Members' Bills on the needs of Britain's disabled people and their families. Yet it is not by any means an old custom. Before the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, there were entire Parliaments in which the claims and needs of disabled people and their families were never debated. It seems unbelievable and outrageous now, but in the Parliament of 1959–64 there was not one debate in the House of Commons on disability. Going further back, there was not a single mention between 1945 and 1959 in the manifestos of either of the main political parties of anything that might be done specifically to help people with disabilities. In congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for

Monklands, West on his choice of Bill, I also most warmly thank him for strongly maintaining this important new tradition of the House.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) has played a most distinguished part in our proceedings. He speaks as chairman of the all-party disablement group. He raised this morning, on new clause 9, an important point about interpreters for deaf people. I hope that what he said will be considered very carefully and sympathetically in the other place. Speaking for the Opposition, we shall be glad if the other place wants to strengthen the Bill. I was saying this morning that many of the Government's proposals offered only 80 per cent. of what we sought, so if the other place wants to go a little further we will look very sympathetically at its proposals.
To use the word "resources" in Committee was like swearing in church. It seems to have been rather less reprehensible to use it on Report. I must, of course, emphasise that the Bill has resource implications. What we must now ensure, in partnership with the local authority associations, is that the resources required by the Bill are made available in addition to those now at the disposal of local government. Unless that happens, the Bill will not achieve its purpose.
As the World Charter for disabled people says, they have the same rights as all mankind to grow and to learn, to work and to create, to love and to be loved. This humane and important Bill will take disabled people much further along the road to the full attainment of that important objective. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is with us today. He has helped enormously in sustaining our efforts to enact the Bill. I understand that we meet in the presence of a very distinguished visitor. My right hon. Friend has spent much of this morning with him.
I thank also all hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House who have helped to press forward an objective that is so important to many of the most needful people in Britain today. Bless 'em all.

Mr. Rowe: I am one of those who reserved my congratulations to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) until Third Reading. Even if I had not kissed the blarney stone—or, given the English background of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health, perhaps I should say the Barney stone—I would like to say just how admirably the hon. Member for Monklands, West has dealt with his Bill.
It is particularly gratifying for a Conservative Member to have played a small part in helping to put a Bill on the statute book that takes us one step further away from the paternalism which has been the key note—despite, perhaps, the best of intentions—of how we have dealt with the problems of the handicapped. Somehow, we have always assumed that the authorities know best, but one of the great things about the Bill is that it states beyond peradventure that the person who is most likely to have a valuable idea about how he can best be looked after is the person who requires the help on offer. Indeed, the representation provisions in the Bill are unbelievably important for that reason alone.
The Bill marks a return to a concept which was once more common but which has been gradually undermined: we all have a responsibility to those who are disabled or ill. The tendency to shut away people who are mentally


handicapped or ill, or who have a severe disability, so that none of us can see them or be troubled by their difficulties must be reversed. The Bill goes a long way towards doing that.
There is work for us to do. In our debate on the carers, my right hon. Friend the Minister made a very important point. He said that if we can show that the Government's estimates of what the full implications of the Bill will cost were wrong and our estimates that it would be much cheaper were right, the Government would seriously consider changing its attitude. This means that everyone interested in further progress under this legislation should work to provide as accurate an estimate as possible of the savings that can be extracted from the care of the carers and from the early assessment of need, so that we can go to the Treasury and say that our estimates are better and more optimistic than the Treasury's estimates and that it should honour the pledge given by the Minister. That is an obligation on the voluntary organisations which played such a great part in getting this Bill through, and on parliamentarians who want further progress to be made. I pledge myself to play my part in that.

Mr. Ashley: I add my tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). Perhaps the best tribute I can pay to him is to say that he has conducted the Bill as we expected him to do. Other people responsible for the passage of the Bill deserve my special tribute. Of these, two have already been mentioned—Peter Mitchell and John Healey. Without their expertise the Bill would never have made progress. I pay a warm tribute to those two people from the back room.
Other people have been active in the all-party disablement group. The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) could not be here today, but he has worked marvellously well in this House year in and year out, often behind the scenes, for disabled people. The other member of the all-party disablement group to whom I refer is the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). On this Bill, he has been the unofficial Whip. I see that our Chief Whip is listening carefully. The unofficial Whip had an important role to play. Without the work of those people, the Bill could not have progressed this far.
The Leader of the Opposition is preoccupied today; he is on a high. However, I am anxious to avoid making any party political point. Ministers might not like this, but they should recognise that without the intervention of the Leader of the Opposition we would not have got the Bill today. I do not want to make heavy weather out of this, but it is a fact. Despite what the Minister has said, I point out that ordinary plodding mortals can inform the Leader of the Opposition of facts about disability, but he transmutes them into political gold. His intervention yesterday was magnificent and most influential. I put that on record because of what the Minister said when speaking to clause 9. He said, "I must be honest with the House." All I am doing now is being honest with the House. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the important role he has played in ensuring the passage of this significant Bill for disabled people.
I now want to pay a tribute to the disabled people themselves. It is by their effort and growing articulation

and insistence on their voice being heard that the Bill will reach the statute book. Nobody who is not disabled realises what severely disabled people go through. Only they and their families realise the extent of the deprivation of the pleasures of life. Only they know the appalling loneliness of disability and how much effort it takes if one is disabled. So it is to those people that I pay tribute today.
Finally, we appreciate what the Government have done, and, I do not want them to misunderstand that. However, the Bill's implementation worries me. We want the Government to implement the Bill as soon as it is passed. If it is not implemented, they will receive the credit for the measure but will not have to find the wherewithal for it. I assume that they will implement the Bill as soon as it reaches the statute book. If they do so, it will transform the lives of millions of disabled people.

Mr. Kennedy: Considering the healthy turn-out on this Bench one can say that the Bill gives all sections of the House a cause for celebration today. I add my thanks and congratulations to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). All those who have participated in this morning's debate will agree that the constructive spirit of co-operation on the issues and priorities which affect the disabled sector has shown the House, particularly those interested in this issue, in an extremely good light.
The Bill gives prominence to the ability and access of the disabled to enjoy the advocacy and the assessment of the needs and issues which confront them; gives priority to care in the community; and emphasises the role of the carers. The Bill is indeed welcome, and we hope that it will have a good and speedy passage in the other place. I echo the words of the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) in saying that we hope its implementation will be as swift as possible.
Obviously, any society and Parliament which devotes attention, to the needs of one of the most vulnerable sections of the community, and one of the sections most in need of parliamentary political support, is behaving well and doing its job well. The Bill has enabled us to do that. We all congratulate the hon. Member for Monklands, West and his colleagues who have worked so hard to make that a reality today, and we thank the Government for their constructive approach.

Mr. William Cash: The Bill is extremely important, and I congratulate the Government on the way in which they have managed to help it pass through the House after a great deal of acrimonious debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) who has fought so ably and courageously for the interests of the disabled. I particularly wanted to make that comment because there has been a lot of acrimony about the Bill. Due recognition should be given to the role the Government played in ensuring that the Bill reaches the statute book.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Drainage Rates (Disabled Persons) Bill

Considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Sir Gerard Vaughan: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third Time.
The House will appreciate that if it accepts the Bill, we shall have passed two measures today which will help disabled people. The Bill is a small step to correct an error in the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978. Under that Act, it was possible for disabled people to have rebates of their rates, but they were unable to have rebates on their drainage rates. Most people pay a general rate and a water rate, but a few people living in areas such as the Fens and around the rivers Ouse and Severn also pay a drainage rate. Inadvertently, under the 1978 Act those disabled people were prevented from receiving rebates of their drainage rates. The Bill will enable those few hundred people to make claims on those rates.
Under the Bill, the rating authority will make a written note to the internal drainage board that it has allowed a rebate on the general rate to some disabled people. The drainage board will then be allowed to give a rebate to those people. It will also be possible for institutions occupied by disabled people to claim rebates. That would cover the provision of additional lavatories, bathrooms and garages and, in some cases, heating allowances, which are required by groups of disabled people.
I hope that the House will regard the Bill as a small measure correcting an error in a previous Act and as a measure of justice to some disabled people.

2 22 pm

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) on his success in the ballot and on his wisdom in choosing this subject for his Bill. Many hon. Members will agree that if an hon. Member is fortunate in the ballot but secures only a modest position, there is always a dilemma about what he should do for the best. He has the option of introducing some great measure of national or world-beating, epoch-making calibre which might sometimes be hugely controversial and which comes to an early end through the use of the procedures of the House and no one hears of the measure again. Alternatively, he could try to find a modest measure that is useful, helpful and necessary. My hon. Friend has adopted the latter course.
My hon. Friend is in good company. I was once in a similar position. In the 1960s, I introduced the Parish Councils and Burial Authorities (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. I do not know whether it is still on the statute book. I suspect that it has been overtaken by other measures.
The Government welcome the Bill. I am grateful to those hon. Members who have eased the Bill's passage so

that it can go on to the other place. I intend to give what help I can to ensure that this small but worthwhile Bill reaches the statute book.
The Bill restores to disabled persons relief from drainage rates which was unintentionally removed by the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978. The hon. Member who introduced that Bill is not present, so I shall not name him. I am satisfied that the omission of that provision was unintentional.
Relief from general rates and special drainage rates payable in areas covered by internal drainage boards was provided by adjustments in the rateable value of properties occupied by disabled persons. The 1978 legislation abolished that system in favour of rebates on general rates, but overlooked similar provisions for drainage rates. The Bill rectifies the position by providing relief on drainage rates in proportion to the rebates on general rates. The sums involved are likely to be small, but we believe that this opportunity should be taken to right an injustice that was inadvertently imposed on the disabled.
We have been reviewing the arrangements for the administration and finance of land drainage and flood defences. The Government are considering the responses to the Green Paper in the light of proposals for water authority privatisation, but final decisions are not likely for some time. The Government's proposals for reform of the general rating system which were announced in the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government" are likely to take some time to be realised. In the meantime, I ask for all-party support, which was given to the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1979, so that this legislation is placed on the statute book.
The guts of the Bill are in clause 1, which requires rating authorities which have granted a rebate under the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978 on a hereditament in an internal drainage district to give the internal drainage board written notice of that rebate. The written notice would state the gross amount of the general rate and the rebate, the hereditament to which it related and the period for which the rebate had been granted. On receipt of that notice, the internal drainage board would grant corresponding relief in respect of any drainage rates chargeable in connection with that hereditament by reducing the drainage rates payable or by repaying any amount that happened to be overpaid.
I have explained to the House how this works. I hope that very soon we shall hear from another place that this matter has been agreed there and that the Bill may appear on the statute book. All hon. Members will want to join me in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East upon the signal service that he has again performed in his long parliamentary life on behalf of the disabled people of this country.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Private Members' Bills

GREATER LONDON COUNTY HALL BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 9 May.

TOBACCO PRODUCTS (TELEVISION BROADCASTS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 18 April.

GAMING (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Mark Carlisle.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Committee what day?

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Now, Sir.

Hon. Members: Object.

Committee on Friday 18 April.

TOBACCO PRODUCTS (SPORTS SPONSORSHIP) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question—[21 February]—That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 18 April.

PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO FUEL BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 4 July.

RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES (PROMOTION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 18 April.

PEACE TAX BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 4 July.

ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION (PARKING) BILL

Ordered,
That Standing Committee C be discharged from considering the Road Traffic Regulation (Parking) Bill and that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. McNamara.]

Committee on Friday 18 April.

TRANSPORT

Ordered,
That Mr. Matthew Parris be discharged from the Transport Committee and Mr. Terry Dicks be added.—[Mr Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Tuesday 15th April, any Motions in the name of Mr. Neil Kinnock or Mr. David Steel relating to Legal Aid and Advice, or Legal Aid and Advice (Scotland) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Freedom of Speech

Motion made, and Question proposed, that this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Mr. John Carlisle: My hon. Friend the Minister will not be surprised if I begin my remarks on this very important subject of freedom of speech within universities and colleges of further education in the same way as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) began his speech to the House on 11 February when he introduced his Freedom of Speech (Universities and Institutions of Higher Education) Bill. He said:
The Bill should not be necessary and it is sad that it is."—[Official Report, 11 February 1986; Vol. 91, c. 795.]
This debate would be unnecessary but for recent events on university campuses, and outside, and the attacks suffered by right hon. and hon. Members of this House and other persons.
Those events, and the discussions which followed, have put some pressure on the vice-chancellors of our universities and the principals of colleges of further education to try to put their houses in order. I have sought this debate to ask the House to reconsider the report of the vice-chancellors and to learn the reaction of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science and, indeed, the views of the Secretary of State.
No one would deny the principle of freedom of speech—it is a freedom contained in law. Few would wish to deny that right, especially at seats of academic learning. The whole process of teaching at university or school concerns the acquisition of knowledge.
The tragedy of recent events is that, of all places, it is at universities and colleges—places of knowledge and learning—that freedom of speech has been denied to certain people. I was disturbed by the remarks of the president of the National Union of Students, Mr. Phil Woolas, concerning my experiences at Bradford. He justified the actions of those who attacked me on the basis of the provocative nature of my speech. I remind the House that, on that occasion, I was not even allowed to say anything because the mob prevented me from doing so. The comments of the president of the NUS are worrying to hon. Members and to members of universities and colleges of further education.
In the past few years, various student unions have passed a no-platform policy. It is a policy whereby visiting speakers are denied the opportunity to address members of the university or members of associations or clubs in the university because of the views that they hold. The unions have adopted this policy on the basis, in some way, of ensouraging the anti-apartheid and anti-racist movements. It is a disturbing procedure and one that should be deplored.
It is gratifying to learn that certain universities and colleges have rescinded the no-platform policy. Oxford and Cambridge—I had trouble at both universities—have now reversed their no-platform policies. That is encouraging. However, the policy exists at certain universities, notably at York. A High Court case is pending against its student union because of this policy. It also exists at Sheffield and at the university of East Anglia.
That is the dark side of the problem but it is encouraging that other universities such as Swansea, Manchester and Lancaster have voted against such a policy. This sorry, sad affair and the attacks that have taken place on hon. Members and other people bring home the fact that students, who are seeking financial support from the House and the Government, are prejudicing their case by the way they treat visiting speakers. There are two sides to the problem. There are the acts preventing visiting speakers from addressing university audiences and actions against members of universities, especially members of the Federation of Conservative Students.
I do not wish to detain the House with a sorry catalogue of the experiences of hon. Members and others. However, for the sake of the record it is right that they should be related to the House. At Manchester university my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) were attacked and in one case sprayed with red paint. More notably, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home office was attacked while attempting to address a meeting and was prevented from speaking. At Nottingham university, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) was prevented from speaking. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, was prevented from speaking at the same university. At Warwick university, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science was prevented from speaking. At Bristol and Bradford universities, my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor) was prevented from speaking. At Kingston polytechnic, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) was prevented from speaking. At Guildford college of law, my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General had his meeting cancelled. At Sussex university, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) was pelted with fruit and eggs. More recently, I was subjected to physical attack at Bradford university and was prevented from speaking at Oxford university. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) was punched in the face in the students union bar after addressing a meeting at Sunderland polytechnic. Perhaps most sinister of all, Professor John Vincent, a lecturer at Bristol university, had his lectures picketed and burst into by an angry mob to the extent that he suffered a great deal of personal harassment.
Those are small examples of what is happening. There are others which do not receive the same publicity. My hon. Friend the Minister will, therefore, have some idea of the physical intimidation that is occurring at universities and colleges of further education. Visiting speakers are being prevented from putting their views.
The reaction in the House has been predictable. No fewer than 54 of my hon. Friends have signed early-day motion 582, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Withington and which deplores the actions of the hooligans. Perhaps as relevant is the fact that three Opposition Members have seen fit to attack that early-day motion and to table an amendment supporting the students who, it says,
have sought to protect their compuses from fascists, racists and apartheid fellow travellers.


Some Opposition Members clearly support the violence on some of our campuses.
Members of the Federation of Conservative Students and members of Conservative associations are also suffering. At the polytechnic of North London, the FCS has been banned from operating freely by the students union. At the Thames polytechnic, no recruitment stall was permitted at freshers evening unless the Tory club, the existence of which the student union refuses to acknowledge, paid a £500 fee by return of post.
At the North Staffordshire polytechnic, the local Conservative party agent was expelled from the student union-controlled recruitment fair under threat of physical violence. At Leicester polytechnic, a FCS vice-chairman was attacked and threatened by a large crowd. At Manchester polytechnic, a recruitment fair stall was overturned and the FCS chairman was punched in the face. At the University of East Anglia the student union withdrew the Conservative Association's funds because of my impending visit.
The main thrust of those who oppose the principle of freedom of speech is severe physical intimidation of the FCS and others interested in the Conservative movement. Meetings with speakers that they hoped to hold are being forced off campus. At various universities and colleges, recruitment for Conservative Associations is being prevented and legitimate funds to those associations are being blocked by student unions and other bodies. Those who attend meetings for visiting speakers of whatever political hue run the risk of some physical intimidation or attack. I have been lucky enough in recent times to receive full police protection at some meetings, but all those who want to attend the meetings do not get the same protection that I and other hon. Members enjoy.
The offenders throughout this long and sorry saga are almost all members of what Paul Johnson in the Spectator described as the "Fascist Left in action." He wrote:
Their clear aim is to prevent, by force and terror, the expression of opinions.
The methods that they use are ugly and violent and are employed in the name of various organisations, including the various dissident groups. In every instance those involved are from the far Left. They are members of the Socialist Workers' party and the Labour party students' organisation, and in many instances they are members of the Militant organisation. There is a somewhat sinister parallel between the activities of this group and the activities of the members of the Nazi party in Germany during the 1920s. We know that the Nazi party tried to influence students and infiltrate student organisations, and that tactic had the disastrous consequences of which we are all aware. The recent opinion poll which expressed the amount of support for the Conservative party being as low as it is reflects, perhaps, the success of the tactics of the Fascist Left.
The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals issued guidelines to its members and other interested parties on 13 December 1985. It did so on the basis of freedom of speech and lawful assembly. It was that which among other things led to this Adjournment debate. There is no doubt that the guidelines contain some fine words and thoughts. There is a reference to the "unequivocal … support" of the Vice-Chancellors for the freedom of expression. It talks about the special responsibilities that universities have to provide a platform for speakers of any political colour and the

right to maintain good order on their premises".
It refers rightly to protecting the rightful freedom of visiting speakers to go to universities and of the members of those universities to hear what they have to say.
I am concerned that the document sets out a rather jellied approach to those who are described as controversial speakers. The guidelines state:
there may be cases of very high risk when universities may have to use their right of refusing permission for the holding of violently controversial meetings in university premises".
That would seem to provide a get-out to vice-chancellors and principals. If they are disturbed by the problems that could occur when certain speakers attend meetings, they have the get-out of being able to cancel the meetings. That has happened far too often to be an instance of vice-chancellors' policy which can be ignored. The guidelines were right and one supports them in principle. One certainly supports the principle of Professor Maurice Shock, who wrote the document in the first place, but the loophole which I have described gives the opportunity to certain principals at universities and colleges to cancel meetings because of fear of some trouble occurring. By cancelling meetings they are cancelling the freedom of speech which this Adjournment debate is all about.
The guidelines admit that in some universities security is inadequate. I accept that the last thing that we want to see is a large number of policemen on student campuses. However, we must acknowledge that where a police presence is necessary police officers should be called in.
There are various lines open to vice-chancellors and principals. First, if offences take place, the student union must be liable to fines. It is good to see that Warwick university was fined some time ago. Secondly, when students are convicted of criminal offences, as happened at a recent meeting in Leicester which I attended, they should be expelled from the university without further questions asked. Thirdly, trouble-makers should be isolated and vice-chancellors should be aware that they exist. Fourthly, I would recommend to vice-chancellors and principals that they should meet visiting speakers and, if need be, share the platform with them so that they can experience the violence that we, the visiting speakers, have to experience.
There are various options open to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, the Secretary of State and Her Majesty's Government. The first is that we adopt the legislation proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Withington which has the full support of Conservative Members. Secondly, the Secretary of State should seriously consider withdrawing funds, as he has the power to do, from those universities and colleges of further education which offend against the principle of free speech. Thirdly, I ask my right hon. Friend to look closely at the funding of the National Union of Students and student union bodies which, as my hon. Friends will know, exist on a closed shop basis. He should particularly look at the role of those who take a sabbatical year and who are, in many cases, those who are causing the most trouble. Fourthly, I say to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that we require a far stronger reaction when those offences occur. I think that it is imperative, which is why I intend to give my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary the opportunity this afternoon, to state firmly and clearly that hon. Members and others should have absolute and free access to universities and such places and be able to put their views


forward, whatever they are, in the pursuit of academic learning. For that reason I shall look forward with interest to what my hon. Friend has to say.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. George Walden): The issue raised by my hon. Friend this afternoon is of vital importance in a democratic society. Historically, this country has been a byword for freedom of speech in general and in its universities in particular—ask any refugee who came to Britain from Nazi Germany in the thirties. But then ask too how the whole situation in Germany began. I suspect that an important part of the answer will be the preference of some people with a liberal conscience for a quiet life.
I do not want to make extravagant comparisons. I am simply warning against complacency. The principles of free speech are indivisible in whatever place or time. Recent events of the kind to which my hon. Friend has referred remind us that there are present in any society—even our own—seeds of intolerance and intellectual thuggery, which can take root and flourish in ugly profusion if not weeded out in time.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State referred in a recent speech—and his reference has been extensively commented upon—to the risk of our schools helping to create a yob society. There is evidence of yobbishness seeping into higher education as well. Those may seem strong words, but the recent pattern of incidents is disturbing.
The Government are greatly concerned about protecting free speech, and about the number of occasions in recent months when it has been threatened. Invited speakers have faced disruption, violent behaviour, and personal assault on campuses. My hon. Friend is not alone in the House in having painful personal experience of this new climate of intolerance. The Government would like universities and other authorities to take firm action to ensure not only that the principle of freedom of speech is fully accepted, but that that principle is applied in practice. They therefore welcome the publication last December by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of guidance on free speech and lawful assembly; and we are gratified to note that the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics is preparing similar guidance for its institutions.
When the CVCP guidance was issued, a good deal of publicity was given to one perhaps unfortunate paragraph which stated that
there may be cases of very high risk when universities may have to use their right of refusing permission for the holding of violently controversial meetings in university premises".
This was seen at the time as providing an easy escape route for institutions which might be willing to take the line of least resistance in order to avoid disruption. The point was taken up by the Government and discussed at a meeting with representatives of the Committee.
Shortly afterwards the chairman wrote to the Secretary of State to reiterate his committee's commitment to freedom of speech and to make it clear that the guidelines were never intended as, and should not be interpreted as providing a pretext for an institution to cancel a meeting other than in extreme circumstances.
I can do no better than quote from the chairman's letter, which unfortunately received less publicity than the original paragraph that gave rise to it. It said:
legal advice and common sense dictated the need to cover circumstances in which a university, having consulted the police, might find itself unable to deal with the prospect of a major disturbance, possibly not provoked by its own students and involving few of them. The document as a whole and the careful phrasing of the passage in question should remove any doubt about where the universities stand on a matter of high principle in a free society. If any university were to surrender weakly to pressure it would not be able to find cover or protection by referring to the Committee's advice, but would rather find itself condemned.
The Government fully endorse the view expressed in the final sentence that I quoted. But that leads me to a deeper concern with a danger that may not yet be sufficiently recognised. The incidents so rightly deplored are merely what we see on the surface of things. In deploring them, we should be aware of a greater danger: the erosion of freedom of speech by default. It is regrettable that the guidelines contain no clear and specific suggestion that university authorities should ensure that speakers are not refused a platform by their student unions. Some recent incidents have been precipitated by those who have acted in defiance of a "no platform" policy. But who can measure the effects of such policies when they are not challenged? Such effects are essentially invisible: we do not know of those who have not been invited, we do not know of those who have been deterred by the threat of possible violence from seeking or agreeing to speak. There are no newspaper reports about debates that do not take place.
The refusal by minority groups of students of a platform on the grounds that particular individuals may be "racist" cannot be justified. When so used, the word "racist" often means little more than that an individual has previously expressed views that the student activists find objectionable. It may be, for example, that they dislike the policies of the South African Government; they are not alone in that. But that is not a justification, or even a sensible reason, for refusing freedom of speech. On the contrary, anyone who wishes to put an alternative view should be welcomed as a demonstration of the fact that in a free society anyone can say what he likes within the law, and so that his views can be exposed to the light of reason, humanity and democratic argument. To deny a platform is more than an attack on freedom of speech: it is a betrayal of the values on which a democracy depends.
The Government see it as vitally important that institutions should take a firm stand on such attempts to deny a platform to a speaker. The way on that has already been pointed by the University of York, which has shown itself willing to take legal action to prevent its student union insituting a "no platform" policy on the ground that such a policy would be inconsistent with the constitution of the student union under the charter and statutes of the university. The Government trust that other institutions will be similarly willing to take vigorous action to eliminate or prevent the introduction of no platform policies. In any instance where, at a particular time, a refusal cannot be prevented, it is to be hoped that the institution itself will consider offering a platform. When incidents occur and a decision to deal firmly with the offenders has been taken, the Government hope that institutions will not be deflected by insidious pressures, from whatever quarter.
I have concentrated so far on the responsibilities of the authorities of institutions in the protection of freedom of speech. But students, too, must accept that responsibility. I am well aware that many of the worst recent incidents have involved outside interlopers and that in some cases student unions were on the side of virtue. But equally there is no lack of evidence of misbehaviour by students. We all know where most of the trouble comes from, but this Government deplore irresponsible behaviour in whatever political quarter it arises.
Above all those who have sought and obtained positions of leadership in the student unions need to consider their position very carefully in this respect. Automatic membership of student unions in our higher education system is founded on a concept of responsible participation on the part of mature members of an academic community in the conduct of that community's affairs. That concept is brought into disrepute where confrontation is precipitated by "no platform" policies; where no lead is given in opposing undemocratic action or violence on campuses; where those who perpetrate it are protected by unions; where union leaders themselves refuse rational discussion with Ministers; and where a union's resources can be seen to be concentrated in favour of a limited range of interests.
We have stated in the past that although we have no present plans for reform of student unions, we sympathise with those who feel that reform may one day be necessary. With each instance where a student union is involved in the kind of threat to democratic values that we have seen too often recently, this sympathy grows. Those who claim to value the opportunities for personal development offered by the exercise of leadership in student unions would be well advised to consider this. If there continue to be others among them who show themselves unable or unwilling to exercise responsibility within the generally

accepted constraints of a democratic society, there will be those in this House who will feel driven to conclude that unions should no longer have access to public funds. Some hon. Members have argued that the opportunity should be taken to insert in the current Education Bill a clause requiring higher education institutions to safeguard freedom of speech. The Government have rejected that approach on the grounds that the proposed clause would not effectively add to the protection of freedom of speech.
I naturally commend the characteristically rigourous and sincere effort that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) made to move a Bill in this direction, and commend the spirit of the Bill, but he knows our view on the practice of introducing it at present.
It is futile to hope for a quiet life by, in effect, acquiescing in a ban on inconvenient outside speakers. The recent treatment of Professor Vincent by members of his own university shows that the canker of violence spreads quickly, and can erupt within our institutions and threaten academic freedom. If our society is to maintain its essential values all of us have a duty to be vigorous, unremitting and energetic in our defence of freedom.
Thomas Mann had more experience than most in these matters. In his passionate denunciation of demagogy and violence in his country in a speech called "The coming victory of democracy", he made this profound remark:
Because of its association and solidarity with knowledge, truth, justice, and as the opposite of violence and vulgarity, intellect becomes the advocate and representative of democracy on earth".
I hope that none of us lives to see the day when this passage can be quoted in reproach of any institute of learning in this country.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Three o'clock.